Henry Eyring tries to read Thomas Monson’s bank statement. Apparently, he too wants to know…
by Marcello Jun de Oliveira
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prides itself in depending exclusively on a volunteer, lay, and non-salaried clergy. Although this is largely true at a local and regional level, where ecclesiastical functions are filled and fulfilled by volunteer leaders, the administrative functions of the Church depend largely on a veritable army of professionals, and the topmost religious leaders of the Church clearly constitute a distinct class of professional clergymen.
Ask any Mormon (i.e., Latter-day Saint, or member of the Church), and s/he will invariably demure from any suggestion that the top leadership of the Church are either professionals or even remunerated, simply because they are not salaried per se, but rather receive stipends or “living expenses” (after all, not everyone can live on 5 loaves and 2 fishes). This person wouldn’t be technically incorrect, seeing as this is the official position of the Church, which is that is merely supports its leaders, but not as salaried professionals.
However, how accurate would this explanation correlate with the facts on the ground? In actual fact, how much does the President of the Church make? What about the Counselors in the First Presidency? The Apostles? The Presidents of the Seventy? The Seventies in the First Quorum?
For the time being, I believe it is literally impossible to answer these questions appropriately, especially because the Church is far from transparent with its financial information, or with any detailed information from which such answers could be deduced. The Church views such financial data as sacred (that is, secret), and thus off limits.
Nevertheless, a friend recently shared with me some relevant information that offers important clues or insights into what the Church remuneration policies might be.
Recently, the Church’s sacred (that is, secret) official Mission President’s Handbook (2006 edition) has been leaked anonymously to the netherworlds of the internet! [1]
In Appendix B of this manual, the Church discusses, quite openly and tellingly, financial stipulations for the men presiding over its many missions across the world.
Mormon Missionaries are volunteers who are supported by their families and congregations. Their mission presidents, on the other hand…
For those less familiar with the Church, it maintains a vast army of young volunteer male and female missionaries in different parts of the world, who proselytize the globe for 18 months (females) and two years (males). These young people are not salaried and must support themselves from their own savings for these 2 years, although more often than not, their families and their home congregations pull together to help them.
For every group of 180-240 young missionaries, an adult is called to lead them for a period of 3 years, as their Mission President. In theory, the mission president is also a volunteer, non-salaried, position.
However, the aforementioned Church manual (written as an instructional booklet for these mission leaders) clearly establishes that, although the Church will not pay them salaries and will expect them to support themselves and their families, it will offer considerable help with their living expenses.
“Considerable” is the operative word here. For instance, the Church will offer full reimbursement for the following personal and familial living expenses of the Mission President and his family, while he serves this volunteer, unsalaried 3 year-stint:
1 Medical expenses, including dental and eye care, though not orthodontics (except in specific cases) and cosmetic surgery (unless covered by the insurance provider);
2 Rent (usually quite upscale);
3 Living expenses proper, including utilities, food, household supplies, dry cleaning, phones, internet, dry cleaning, etc.;
4 One official car, with maintenance and gas;
5 One second official car for the wife, with maintenance and gas;
6 Clothing for the mission president and his family;
7 “Family activities” (unspecified, possibly purposefully vague);
8 Long-distance personal phone calls;
9 One round trip for each unmarried child under 26 to visit the parents out in the mission field;
10 “Modest gifts (for example, Christmas, birthdays, or anniversary)”;
11 Support for children serving full-time missions;
12 Elementary and secondary school expenses (including tuition, usually in upscale private schools, including fees, books, and materials);
13 Extra-curricular activities for the children, such as music lessons, dance lessons, sports, etc.;
14 Undergraduate tuition at an accredited college or university (tuition cap at BYU’s rate, tuition waived at Church-owned schools);
15 Part-time housekeeper/cook (20 hours/week);
16 Gardener, if necessary;
17 Income Tax and Tithing exemptions.
Does the Church also subsidize pants for women, or just Sunday-appropriate skirts?
Technically, none of this constitutes salaried remunerations. No excess monies or savings can be accrued from them. None of this can be carried over into retirement funds. None of it is attributable by law as personal income for income tax purposes. None of it can be invested for further gain. Nevertheless, it cannot be affirmed that these allowances do not add considerable costs to the Church, nor can it be ignored that they constitute more monetary compensations than the average — okay, the majority — of Latter-day Saints. Put another way, I know very few members of the Church who wouldn’t gladly exchange their current salaries for these “stipends.”
One other interesting revelation from the manual is the Church’s preoccupation with avoiding government taxes and preventing the public discussion of Church financial practices:
Because you are engaged in volunteer religious service, no employer-employee relationship exists between you and the Church. As a result, any funds reimbursed to you from the Church are not considered income for tax purposes; they are not reported to the government… To avoid raising unnecessary tax questions, please follow these guidelines closely: 1) Do not share information on funds you receive from the Church with those who help you with financial or tax matters… 2) Never represent in any way that you are paid for your service… 3) If you are required to file an income-tax report for other purposes, do not list any funds you receive from the Church, regardless of where you serve…
Furthermore the sacred (that is, secret) nature of these fund transfers is expressed unequivocally:
The amount of any funds reimbursed to you should be kept strictly confidential and should not be discussed with missionaries, other mission presidents, friends, or family members.
General Authorities
Much like mission presidents, the General Authorities of the Church do not receive salaried remunerations, but rather stipends and living expenses. Unlike mission presidents, however, these ecclesiastical leaders have tenure, that is, they enjoy life-time appointments that include retirement benefits, which one might suppose differ little from these non-salaried “living expenses” during active duty as a mission president.
Furthermore, it is a well-attested fact that the Apostles serve on the boards of the many varied multi-billion dollar for-profit entities owned and run by the Corporation of the President, such as Deseret Management Corp. ($1.2 billion in annual receipts), AgReserves, Hawaii Reserves, Polynesian Cultural Center ($59 million in annual profits, with a president earning a 300k annual salary), Ensign Peak Advisors (multi-billion dollars investment fund management company), Beneficial Life Insurance (a $3 billion dollar fund insurance company), Intellectual Reserve Inc., Deseret Trust Co., etc. [2][3]
;
Organizational Structure of the Corporation Sole of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Source: Businessweek)
All of these multi-billion dollar operations are under direct control of the Corporation of the President, who himself allocates board control to his fellow Apostles and Presiding Bishops, and whose stocks and shares are distributed among the many General Authorities. Most, if not all, of the finances and ledgers (profits, assets, investments, payments, etc.) of these corporations are closed to public scrutiny by deliberate design from the Church (i.e., the Corporation Sole of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is not quite the same thing as the entity of the Church), making disclosure on board payments nearly impossible to discover.
Estimates based on those few factors that are publicly known (assets ownership, locations and real estate comparisons, volume of sales and transactions, mergers and acquisitions, etc.) have helped some researchers calculate possible earning scenarios, and based on similar trends in the private market they allow us to make reasonable, educated guesses on what these Church-owned corporations might pay their board members, and as such, the Apostles sitting on those boards.
Millionaire Mitt Romney sets up a non-profit to use the LDS Church to shield himself from paying federal taxes and ends up paying almost more in tithing to the Church than he does in taxes to the Federal Government he so wanted to preside over…
According to LDS anthropologist and former Church employee Daymon Smith, the Church can invest its religious funds (i.e., money from tithes and offerings) into its own for-profit companies, circulate the monies in multiple investments and other high-yielding portfolios accruing considerable profits, and subsequently return said funds to the Church for religious use, all the while eschewing government taxes along the way because of its religiously-based tax exempt status. Furthermore, the Church can accept donations (i.e., tithes and offerings) in the form of stocks and bonds, which can be sold for profit, allowing the donors to evade federal taxes (Mitt Romney famously established such a non-profit to use the Church to shield himself from federal income taxes). [4][5]
Therefore, the Church can legally claim to pay “stipends” and “living expenses” to its ecclesiastical leaders and still boast of an all-volunteer clergy, while maintaining its top clergy with extremely generous living conditions through benefits (as documented for mission presidents) that are tax-exempt, and at the same time paying them wealthy bonuses through its for-profit corporate subsidiaries. All this can occur outside of public scrutiny, through a corporation semantically distinct from the actual religious entity of the Church. The Church itself hasn’t allowed any public disclosures of its financial and accounting practices, making a specific, detailed analysis impossible. The entire network is, by now, so convoluted that Mormon historian Michael Quinn estimates that possibly no one person truly — and honestly — knows just how much every other Church leader (aside from himself) actually makes from the Church’s multiple organizations. If Quinn is correct, one is then left to wonder whether this is not by design. [6][7][8][9][10][11]
In 2009, the LDS Church in Canada filed the annual earnings of its employees there with the federal government. Out of 184 full time employees, the average salary was $83,000, with 2 of them earning between $80,000 and $120,000, 6 of them earning between $120,000 and $160,000, and the top 2 earning between $160,000 and $200,000. Considering that such salaries were way above the national pay average ($50,000 for business administrators in the private sector, which normally pays better than the non-profit third sector), plus taking into account the “living expenses” benefits that the Church seems to be quite liberal with (as per our earlier discoveries regarding mission presidents), it is safe to presume that the Church generally pays above-average wages with lavish benefits. It then stands to reason that Apostles may earn something between $300,000 and $800,000 a year, if not much more in the higher echelon (i.e. First Presidency and Senior Apostles). [12][13][14][15]
However, it is extremely important to note that, due to the extreme culture of secrecy surrounding finances in the Church, these estimates can only be treated as speculative. The little data we have thus far been able to piece together offers only glimpses and a general notion of Church finances, but this understanding is far from concrete. We are left to implore insiders to come forth with hard numbers and evidence to help us further illuminate the subject and shine a light into this hitherto unanswered question in Mormonism. Are there any takers?
-Submitted by Marcello Jun de Oliveira. Original text posted in the Brazilian Vozes Mórmons website.
ANNOUNCEMENT: The Associação Brasileira de Estudos Mórmons (ABEM, the Brazilian Mormon Studies Association), which runs Vozes Mórmons, is having a conference on January 19th in Sao Paolo–Marcello is one of the speakers. The program is on this page: http://vozesmormons.com.br/2013/01/05/programa-da-iv-conferencia-brasileira-de-estudos-mormons/
NOTES AND LINKS
I’ve been thinking about this topic for quite a while. I find that I don’t mind the generosity of the church generally toward its leaders, but I do very much mind the general “feed them on the words of Christ” policy that our church has toward everyone else.
I look forward to Dr. Quinn’s book.
I’m a Church member and couldn’t care less what people earn. What does it matter? Well, it seems to matter a lot to some people who apparently live in culture of envy. My businesses finances are shared only with my tax authorities – they are private. Given the degree of biased and unfair treatment of the Church over the years and the fact that all other Churches keep their financials ‘private’ not ‘secret’, I think it is somewhat understandable that they appear unduly cautious in revealing the complete financial picture. And why shouldn’t they? – no other religious body is overly generous in declaring their financial position and I personally cannot see where the so called profits of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are going or being spent or used but for the Lord’s work. The assets of the Church are principally held in ‘accommodation’; that is commercial or housing stock used for the benefit of its members and the communities where they are located. The Church does not collect rent or generate income from these holdings so where’s the beef? This article is ill-informed, consistently inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding and respect for the way religious organizations conduct their business.
I hope one day we get rid of our secrecy about finances. It’s not healthy.
I have no problem with the church or its members maximizing the benefit of the tax code, my problem lies with the tax code.
It makes sense that mission presidents should be paid, many of them are still in the middle of their careers when they leave for 3 years and it can be difficult to be unavailable to a client/employer for that amount of time and expect to pick back up where they left off. It is sad though, that the church wouldn’t show the same generosity (at least I assume they don’t) to the missionary couples, most of whom I would guess are retired with a fixed income.
But the secrecy of it all has an ick factor (I am surprised to hear that mission presidents are paid), particularly telling them not to share the reimbursement with their financial adviser/accountant to avoid “unnecessary questions.”
Mission Presidents are not paid, that is what the article stated.
To become a mission president you generally make a great sacrifice. I know personally a guy who was called to serve as a mission president. In order to do so he was required by McDonalds to sell two of his franchises and was allowed to give one to his son. I dunno if you know much about the difficulty of getting into that chain. This decission easily cost him millions of dollars, and for what? So his family could have clothing and dry cleaning provided for him for 3 years. So they could dedicate their live 24/7/365 for three years taking care of other peoples children, looking out for their welfare, protecting them physically and spiritually up to 300 of them for three years.
To think that mission presidents do this type of service for any type of financial gain is a gross misunderstanding. They are loving driven individuals that know how to effectively teach missionaries. My mission president gave up running his law office for three years, they do it because they love the Lord. There is absolutely no worldly gain, intact in every case I have heard of it is the opposite.
The reason these things are provided for is this.
Matthew 6:25
“Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?”
This allows missionaries and mission presidents to focus on 1 thing and 1 thing only. Serving God.
Sorry, D&S — even though I think that much of the information in this post is accurate and important to be circulated, the author’s wording detracts from his point, and the implied tone regarding other unrelated issues undermines the importance of the information it attempts to deliver.
A few examples of wording problems: missionaries do *not* pay their own way on missions (they used to, but they do not do so any longer) — for some (those who can afford it, but not all) they or their families make standardized amount donations to the Church, and (whether they do or not) the Church provides individualized (by area-cost-of-living mostly) amounts of support to missionaries across the world — not exactly the same as the mission president support arrangements, but not as different from them as the author represents them to be. Another example: “allowing donors to evade taxes…” Tax *evasion* is a federal crime in the US. What Mitt Romney — and millions of other US taxpayers — did by donating securities in lieu of cash is a long-accepted and IRS-recognized practice that does *not* constitute tax evasion.
Regarding tone: the (presumed) attempts at humor with the pictures — an Onion-like recaptioning of the picture of Monson and Eyring, the sarcastic/snide query regarding pants — bring into question exactly what the article is about — is it a lampoon that we should expect to take liberties with the facts and the truth in order to entertain? Or is it intended to be taken seriously, and we are expected to recognize how and where the author has played loosely with the facts or the implications?
Bingo.
Sean, I think you’re correct that “evade” presupposes criminality in the context of US tax law, but this article appears to be a translation into English from Brazilian Portuguese. The Portuguese word translated as “evade” is evitam. I would have rendered it as “avoid” if I had been the translator, without a second thought. “Evade” strikes me as a notably unconventional translation. I can think of two explanations: either (a) the original Portuguese implies illegality (my everyday knowledge of the language isn’t up to tax-law connotations), and “evade” was chosen to reflect this, or (b) the translator is not a native speaker of American English, but has seen “evade” used with taxes in English often enough to reach the mistaken conclusion that you would always use “evade” to describe actions taken to pay less tax. Someone who knows the language better than I do may be able to comment on (a), but this may well just be a poor translation.
Well said.
This is very interesting. I already knew much of this. To me the sad thing is the gap, widening even, between these men and the “ordinary” member of the church. Some of us spend all of our time just trying to survive. Literally. It’s hard to find the time even to listen to or read their words, because we are working so hard just to keep body and soul together. The incongruency is blatant. I think of how many financial analysts warn that there are “hard times” coming. For some of us “hard times” are the norm, but I do think that it might be easier for those of us who have had less, especially if we have taken seriously the advise to live providently. I have some extra rice (and a few other grains) and beans stored, and I can eat them. I do not depend upon a high living standard for my feelings of well-being. I think that being “poor” might be a blessing in a world filled with chaos. I think these men and their families need my prayers.
As those who know me will confirm, I’m not one to shy away from criticism of the church where criticism is due. And the truth is that the church deserves much criticism when it comes to the secrecy surrounding its finances.
That said, this piece strikes me as overly sensationalized, unbalanced, and wholly lacking in critical thought. Not D&S’s finest moment giving air time to this drivel.
Transparency would be good. Opacity only has long term downsides.
I think that humor is needed in order to digest this, so I don’t criticize the essay. But I want to add (sorry I didn’t put it in my earlier comment) that as the disparity between the “leaders” of the church and the “members” of the church increases, it may become more difficult for many members even to relate to the words of the church leaders. This is why, perhaps, it is so important for regular and careful reading of the Book of Mormon, if those of us who really care want to have any religion left in which to believe. The Book of Mormon deals with the issue of economic disparity.
I have found it more difficult in the past few years to relate to the words of the general authorities. They simply live on a plane which I cannot comprehend, and I no longer wish to feel ashamed that I have a low income (literally). My deepest concern at this point is the treatment of the homeless and destitute. Those of us who “feel their pain” can only do so much. When I think of the resources that the church does have at its disposal and those LDS who have even much less than I do, I feel the discrepancy for those who are truly suffering, not just barely scraping ends together.
I’m sorry, but where do you live? Have you tried reaching out asking for help if you’re so desperate?
Often people complain about their status, but do nothing to try changing it, whether it is because their pride won’t allow them to reach for help, or they may not know where to seek that help, or simply because of unresolved mental condition/illness.
I was born Catholic and converted to Mormonism when I was 18. I served my 2 yr full time mission and was active in the LDS Church for 12 yrs till I eventually became inactive 14 yrs ago. You may not agree with some of its teachings, you may not like some of its members, I for instance cannot stand Romney, who I think is a buffoon, but you can’t say that the leaders of the Church choose to do it as a career or for profit. First of all most leaders of the Church who end up being called to the higher “ranks” are either already retired and therefore benefiting from their own retirement plans. Second, most of them were successful in their careers as Doctors, Lawyers, and Entrepreneurs, that by giving up their full time profession they end up losing a whole lot more than the article claims they might be making now as leaders of the Church.
Again, I left the Church for my own personal reasons, but the claims this article is making are absurd and laughable to me.
I can appreciate the comments regarding the tone of the post, and I also agree that this post, in some respects, may seem inconsistent with our focus here at D&S on the respectful (and artful, hopefully) portrayal of personal experience.
For those of you that don’t like the post, our apologies.
On the other hand, I believe (and this is from the perspective of Mr. Mormon in the Cheap Seats) that the tone of this post (and the nature of the dialogue surrounding church finances, in general) is invited by the inappropriate level of secrecy maintained by the church regarding the use of tithing funds, its business holdings, and its finances in general. Historically, it hasn’t always been this way. When church leaders intentionally perpetuate the idea that the church is run by volunteers, they are perpetuating a falsehood. I honestly don’t know what other word to use. Church leaders receive the equivalent of fairly generous salaries, and the church office building is not staffed with volunteers. The church’s financial holdings are extensive, and in many respects, the church is run like a modern corporation (not the mention the fact that it is, literally, a collection of corporations).
The idea that this information is “sacred” is self-serving (and I could come up with a few more adjectives). The church released detailed financial data, I believe, up until sometime in the 1950s (does someone want to verify that date?), but stopped doing so when the church began experiencing financial difficulties. The church currently releases financial data in England and Canada (and elsewhere, when it is required to do so by law). There is nothing sacred about investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a mall, or spending millions of dollars renovating the homes of church leaders. If anything, the sacred nature of tithing should demand full and transparent accounting. Disclosure, not secrecy, is the best way to honor tithing stewardship. That’s what Joseph Smith and early church leadership believed.
If anyone would like to write on this topic in a manner that is more “respectful” or more grounded in personal experience, we would gladly run it along side this post.
It should be pretty clear that we have a problem:
https://dovesandserpents.org/2012/04/25-mcs-conference-and-rolexes/
In terms of whether the Church (and its entities) pays employees above market, I can say that a few years ago I was approached by a Church entity for a high level legal position where the pay would have been $160,000 per year, which is about the starting salary for lawyers in several large cities. It would have required a substantial reduction in pay for me (ultimately I was not offered the job) and probably anyone else of the caliber they sought. True, for the vast majority of people (and most members of the Church), that level of pay would have seen exorbitant, but by standards of the legal marketplace, the salary offered was relatively modest. Thus, I do not think that the lawyers in the Church’s employ (some of whom were partners in major law firms) are paid exorbitantly–paid very well, I am sure, compared to the Church at large, but well below market for legal services. Question: should highly trained professionals be willing to work for the Church for, say, the average salary received by an average members–or even less than the average? Should the law of consecration require at least that much sacrifice? I have heard through the grapevine that at one time BYU’s faculty salaries were so low as to be akin to the law of consecration. I gather that pay levels for employees have been a subject of much discussion over the decades by the leaders of the Church. If the tension has been resolved by paying employees in a market range for the nature of services, I do not have a problem.
I do not have enough information to opine on whether or how reasonable the living allowances are for the general authorities.
It seems to me that church employees, unless very high up on the ladder, are under paid for their positions. It’s the general authorities that get very generous compensation.
My dad was a mission president. And this sounds a lot better than it actually was. My parents did live in a very nice house, but usually the Church has purchased those already and keep them for the mission, and each president/family just live in the same house. In our case, the mission home was also a place for missionaries to stay, included mission offices, etc. My parents did have a gardner, because the house had a somewhat big yard that they simply didn’t have the time to maintain.
No cook/house keeper that I remember. My siblings went to the public school out there. My mission presiden’ts kids did get to attend an American school, but they also didn’t speak the language of the mission. My parents had a mission car, but it was nothing fancy, and gets passed on from mission president to mission president until it’s too old.
In short, my parents had everything they needed during their mission. But I know my dad was limited in his funds, and there were no fancy Christmas presents, or other gifts, or traveling of kids. I don’t know if that was because my dad chose to not use more of what he could have gotten, or because it sounds more elaborate than it really is. I started college (BYU) while my parents were still serving as mission presidents, and I know that it was a financial sacrifice for my parents to support me (I wasn’t allowed to work the first 2 semesters, and still needed money beyond tuition – Church only paid for tuition). So, I don’t know…this is still too speculative for me.
Can”t someone hack into Pres. Monson’s bank account or something? :) Someone get Julian Assange on this, please.
Brent asked “The church released detailed financial data, I believe, up until sometime in the 1950s (does someone want to verify that date?)”.
The last public financial report was presented in 1951: http://archive.org/stream/conferencereport1951a#page/n11/mode/2up
I make a difference between what GA’s are paid and what “church employees” are paid. Church members in the U.S. would be surprised at the level of the GA’s living allowances but might justify it anyway. Members outside the U.S. would be absolutely shocked. I remember a conversation maybe 10 years ago with a church member from Western Europe. He was shocked then, than a GA might be receiving $3,000 to $4,000 in living allowance. I’m not sure where he had come up with that figure he knew a 1st Q70 personally and had, somehow gotten that amount from a conversation. He thought that was very generous. I stayed silent because I knew that, in the US, that wasn’t considered alot of money. So, were they to find out that the amounts are more in the hundreds of thousands per year, plus all the perks from companies that offer them deep discounts on stuff the average member pays full price for or travel perks–I don’t mean church travel, I mean church members making exotic vacation spots available and such– I’m sure that would send shock-waves through the church. I know a couple of GA’s who were not rich when they were called, not former executive or lawyers or docs, and live very, very comfortably now.
Also, Sean, while it’s true that mission costs have been equalized, I’ve also read from many parents and some former missionaries how tight their budgets are and how often some of them go without food. May not be widespread but it does happen.
I agree that the tone of the article (especially the caption under the first image) detracted from the message.
What frustrates me most is how all of this is so speculative. And that’s because of the secrecy. I don’t have a problem with mission presidents receiving stipends or remuneration. I don’t have a problem with General Authorities receiving stipends or remuneration. I wouldn’t even have a problem with bishops and branch presidents receiving them.
But that there is no transparency is really troubling. I mentioned this once to someone else who asked me, “Don’t you trust them?”
I said, “No. I don’t trust anyone with that kind of money and power. It’s nothing personal.”
The people I know who work for the church in Salt Lake have said that things have changed in the last decade or so. It’s a lot harsher now, and there are constant turf battles between different general authorities — turf battles which are reflected in the middle and lower management. It’s extremely stressful and there is a high level of employee dissatisfaction. I assume there is a pretty high level of cognitive dissonance as well, because why would an organization with Jesus Christ at its head be so awful to the people who work for it?
Also, from what I understand, the pay is not good. I do know of several people who went to work for the church because they wanted to build the lord’s kingdom, and ended up working for far below market rate for their particular skillset.
I also know of someone who left a very lucrative career to head a church agency. He took about a 60% pay cut, at age 55 or so. 10 years later, at age 65, they let him go with a tiny severance (which ended up having 40% taken out for taxes). He had used his retirement money to finance his lifestyle while working for the church, and thus at age 65 was left with little or nothing to live on. Granted, these decisions he made probably weren’t the best, but he took the job and made the decisions assuming that he would be taken care of… and he was, just not the way he had expected.
@Russ Gray–
I have never worked for the church, directly, though I did work for BYU and CES (briefly) many years ago. I know people who worked in the COB, and it was very jading work; it was hard for them not to become cynical.
I know someone who worked at the garment factory, and that work was very difficult, and the environment was sometimes quite hostile.
Even with my work for BYU/CES it was easy to feel the cognitive dissonance. For that reason I eventually left the intermountain west and determined never to have any business dealings with the church or even LDS again–
As for the caption on the opening photo–
It’s very common to see these men sitting in that position, laughing. That is mostly what I see when I see the conference shots, the First Presidency joking around, smiling broadly. It’s hard to imagine that (and we don’t see it) in our ward with our over-worked bishop and his exhausted counselors.
I have no issue with the church paying its employees well. I also have no issue with Mission Presidents getting taken care of when serving for 3 years.
But, I do have an issue with these things when you there is a lack of financial transparency, a perpetuating perception that the church is run by a lay ministry, the capital gained acquired and allocated to the for-profit entities while humanitarian causes receive a fraction. All of this occurs while every member is required to give 10% of their income along with significant sacrifice of their time…all while hearing stories in General Conference of poor members in Argentina donating their gold fillings for the construction of a new temple. Local congregation budgets have been scaled back, programs are cut, missionaries are called to volunteer time as missionaries at for-profit areas of the church, etc. It doesn’t feel right. I know that the private market would be nicer to those GA’s, but there’s unfairness and unnecessary sacrifice for too many members. Something needs to change, and financial transparency would be a good start.
I do have some first-hand experience with MP compensation. I was the clerk in the mission office for nine months and my president relied on me to do a lot of his personal business. Each month, I initiated an overseas transfer of funds from his savings account in SLC to his local account. The amount varied, but it was usually in the range of $300-400/month. I was also around the mission home often, and I know that they were quite frugal. Tuna noodle casserole was the spécialité de la maison. If we extrapolate from my nine months of experience to the full 3 years, my mission president’s family made a financial sacrifice in the $12,000-$15,000 range. So to that extent, I think this blog post is misleading.
I agree with previous commenters who fault the church for maintaining such a high level of secrecy, bordering on paranoia. I believe this sort of speculation is ultimately unhealthy, but the church could shut it down tomorrow, simply by making some reasonable disclosures.
One of the reasons I believe that church cannot revert back to a position of transparency is because it is in a bit of a bind. It has cultivated a general image of lay clergy and frugality that is no longer reconcilable with reality. If the church were to release its financial data, I believe it would shock most members. Approximately 5000 new freshman are admitted to BYU Provo each year–a tiny portion of the church population–and those admitted are overwhelmingly white and from the US. If the church were to release the amount of tithing “subsidies” that go into BYU, I believe it would lead to open “revolt” in areas outside the US. Hundreds of millions of dollars have undoubtedly gone into BYU over the years. Transparency would also reveal that hundreds of millions of dollars were dedicated to “dressing up” downtown Salt Lake, for example. It would become clear that volunteer labor (missionary labor, in some cases) is used to help to generate substantial profit in church-owned businesses. Once all stipends and other support is factored in, top leadership compensation could very well be in the 200 or 300k range, or higher (and that’s a number that would be difficult to explain to the average member). And the list goes on. . . . None of this is “wrong” per se, or bad business practice. . . . The problem lies in the fact that the church has created an general image of things that doesn’t match this reality–and it’s the divergence between image and reality that will get the church in trouble. Prediction: Sooner or later, if this divergence persists, reliable financial information will be leaked into the public domain by someone, and the results won’t be pretty. . .
I agree. I have a theory that what will finally happen to bring the church to repentance on some of the things we sorely need to repent of (lack of financial transparency, racism, worthiness culture, etc.) is a major scandal. I hope I’m wrong about that. I don’t want there to be scandal, and I’d so rather see repentance rise organically. But I fear it might be the only thing that does it.
“None of this is “wrong” per se, or bad business practice.”
Personally I do have a problem with a so-called non-profit, with Christ supposedly at the head, operating with typical corporate business practices. Especially if it’s true that they’re paying dividends their board members and stock holders (the 1st pres and 12) on top of what they’re already getting paid. They should be taking a much higher road here.
Yeah and the whole non transparent thing because it’s “sacred” is total and complete BS.
I’m sorry. . . but what are you talking about? What’s your point? What has the Church done to hurt you? What do you even know about what the Church does “in areas outside the US?” How does it affect you? And why would you even care? Do you even have a valid Passport? Because your thinking is very limited. You obviously have no idea of what you’re talking about. . .I was born and raised Catholic, and joined the Church and served my full time mission in Italy. After my mission I served in the local District Presidency so I know how the Church spends its funds outside the US, YOU DO NOT!!! I served my mission after only having been a member for 2 years. . .I didn’t have the funds and guess who paid for my mission? I graduated from BYU which is a great institution recognized worldwide (true, partly because of its football team) and I was paying a little over $1000 per semester in tuition which is nothing. . .so I know where the Church funds go, you are just a bitter Utah resident who’s grades obviously were not good enough to get into BYU and now you’re bitching and moaning. Listen to me. . .lose your bitter pants and move on. . .Do something more proactive with your time. . .like travel to Italy and see how your “fancy” Temple Square compares to the riches of the Catholic Church and come back and report!
Your church is a cult.
(BTW I have a passport; have been to Rome, and do not live in Utah.)
Your anecdotes hardly qualify you for “knowing” how the church spends its funds outside the US. (Maybe you have a seer stone and a magic hat?)
Go away, you are very rude!
I don’t like two things here:
1. the church paying for mission presidents’ 18+ year old children’s college education. A lot of church members who are paying tithing can’t afford this. Their children either aren’t going to college or they’re getting loans from the federal government. This seems inherently unfair.
2. the church telling mission presidents to keep this stuff from their accountants. That feels icky to me. Sneaky somehow. If we’re obeying the law (the letter or the spirit?), then we shouldn’t have to hide anything, right?
If your kids were smart enough they could get their college tuition paid with scholarships, but I guess they’re not! And why do haters always talk on behalf of someone else? Don’t you have your own nightmare stories to tell? Then keep your hearsay to yourself you’re just wasting time and energy.
. . Next?!
Gwop, are you sure you’re not the “hater”? The tone of your comments and questions is uncalled for. The experiences you mention don’t lend credibility to your claims of knowing how the Church spends its money abroad, so these people have just as much right to their opinions as you have to yours. I’m glad if you consider yourself smart because you got into BYU, but lots of smart people get excluded for one reason or another. I went to BYU, and I didn’t think I or my fellow students were smarter than anyone else. And not all smart people can get scholarships to pay for their college.
As far as I can see, only one or two people have made negative comments about the Church on this message board. Most just want to see a little more transparency.
Brent, that is a very good point, and I think it is inevitable. The church is growing much faster outside the U.S. than inside. We might still be a generation away, but at some point in the future, Peruvians, Mexicans, and Filipinos (and let’s hope also FIlipinas) will be part of the decision-making body which allocates church funds. At that point, our priorities will be re-ordered. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.
Heather, re: college tuition for kids. That is one of the benefits offered to professors at church campuses, part of the package intended to sweeten the deal, since salaries are relatively low. So even though we are taking all kinds of measures to say that MPs are NOT church employees, it’s things like the tuition deal that make them look like employees anyway.
Yeah, Mark. I’d love it if my kids could get their tuition paid for at my university. Alas, there is no such benefit–even at the lowest (one of the lowest?) salary public university in Texas. Sigh. But that’s okay.
Doing that for faculty members seems different than for mission presidents, to me. At least a faculty member could then consider it part of their compensation package, if you will.
So, as Brent (I think) said earlier, I guess it’s the disconnect between the stories we tell and reality. I’ve personally never heard that the children of mission presidents get their tuition paid for. I thought they went and lived, as many here suggest, very frugally. Having your kid’s college tuition paid for doesn’t seem like living very frugally. That seems like a huge huge perk to me.
A few points, Heather:
1. While having your kid’s college tuition paid may seem like a perk, remember that it comes in exchange for giving up your job (in addition to giving up lots of other things, like your free time, living in your own home, being with your friends and family, etc.). Most folks depend on their job to support their kids through school, and if you can’t work because you are going to dedicate 3 years of your life to serving as a mission president, this strikes me a reasonable accommodation. The fact of the matter is that for virtually every mission president who serves, it comes as a financial sacrifice. And for most, it is an enormous one. No one is doing this for the so-called perks.
2. Consider the alternative: If you don’t provide support for people who can’t afford to give up their job for 3 years, then you will have no mission president who is not independently wealthy. I favor expanding these important service and leadership opportunities to the rest of the 99.9% of Mormons who don’t fit that category. For those who’d like to see greater diversity in their church leaders, they should too.
3. Your mileage may vary, but in my experience, the church — as a rule — is incredibly cheap when it comes to these sorts of things. I don’t think anyone in church government is looking to line the pockets of the 350 or so mission presidents serving around the world. Hell they won’t even pay someone to come clean the damn church. Is there a risk that those at the very highest levels of church government are making self-serving decisions to enrich themselves? Sure. And to avoid that possibility, the church ought to shed some sunlight on its finances. But the idea that mission presidents are the beneficiaries of church largess strikes me as untenable. Rather, it seems to me that the church is trying to lighten the financial burden enough to make this service possible.
Bottom line, when it comes to the support provided for mission presidents, I simply don’t see the same disconnect that you and Brent see.
Good points, Randy. I think that anyone that looks at this rationally would have to conclude that if all the reimbursements, stipends and allowances are summed, it is equivalent (more or less) to a reasonable salary. And in many cases, that salary would represent a pay cut for those that serve (although for some, it wouldn’t, of course).
The disconnect lies in the generally-accepted notion that mission presidents aren’t paid (i.e. that they are volunteers). They aren’t. They’re paid. There’s nothing wrong with paying them (as you point out). The problem, for me, is paying them while simultaneously pretending that you don’t (for image and/or tax reasons).
I also suspect that if the tax authorities of various countries took a look at this arrangement, they would conclude that the church is effecively paying a taxable salary. . .
Brent, when you say the church is “pretending” that they don’t provide support for mission presidents, do you have a particular statement in mind? I don’t recall seeing anything like this, but admit I haven’t gone looking either. If we’re going to talk about what the church has said, perhaps we should actually look at what the church has said. (Tellingly, you won’t find it in the post.)
As for the tax implications, what’s the basis for your suspicion? As noted by Sean above, tax evasion is a federal crime. It’s clear from the excerpt quoted in the post that the church has considered the tax implications of this arrangement and believes it has found a path through the tax code. Is it possible that they are wrong? Well sure, but it’s going to take more than a hunch to convince me. Perhaps it is not intuitive that these sorts of things would not be considered “income” for tax purposes, but the tax code is littered with unintuitive rules and regulations.
Finally, I simply disagree with your point about the support for mission presidents adding up to a “reasonable salary,” but perhaps we are just disagreeing over what a reasonable salary is. I have no doubt that the “cost” of these items would run well into the thousands of dollars if the mission president had to purchase them on his own, but this, at least in my mind, is quite different from “paying” someone to be a mission president. None of this support actually ends up as money in the guy’s pocket. The support provided merely offsets the financial hit he and his family has to take.
Now the secrecy stuff pisses me off. The church’s belief that you can solve these sorts of problems by telling people to keep quiet is silly and wrong. They need to get past that mentality. But I’m finding it hard to get too worked up about how much the church helps out its mission presidents.
Sure. This makes sense. I don’t share the perspective or the tone of this post; I have much more mixed feelings about it. It just feels incongruous to me–as does the church building a huge mall and upscale condos. I just don’t want to be involved with a church that has that focus.
So it’s hard for me to untangle all those feelings.
But, the college tuition still bugs me. I spend every day in a university with 50%+ first generation college goers. This college tuition benefit seems huge to me, when I think about the way some of my students are struggling.
To be honest, part of what frustrates me about the post is that it is tangles many different things together as if the issues were all the same. They are not. Whether the church should pay college tuition for the children of it’s mission presidents is different from whether the church should invest in a mall or whether it’s financials should be made public. I hear your point about college tuition in light of the struggles that many of your students face. Of course, this is just a matter of line drawing. For some, having a home and two cars is a huge benefit. Wouldn’t that money be better spent helping those without any home or any car? In the end, though, if you want people to serve, you have to make it possible. In my view, it’s a good thing that people don’t have to choose between sending their kids to college and serving as a mission president.
You’re right, there is a lot that is conflated in the post. I’ll stick by my argument that it’s nearly the same as a salary (what’s the difference between paying somebody 75k a year in a “salary” or having them make a list of things–hourse, two cars, food, maid, gardener, plane tickets, christmas gifts, college tuition, etc.–that add up to 75k a year and “reimbursing” them for these expenses? To me, there is no functional difference.
I’m sure the church is aggressive when it comes to avoiding taxes, and it’s pretty clear from some of the problems they’ve had in the past that they are comfortable getting into all sorts of gray areas. . . I will be surprised, now that this information is publically available, if they aren’t required to start paying taxes in at least some of the countries where they operate. . . that’s just my opinion, of course.
As for the image question, there are literally hundreds of instances in which church leaders have talked up the notion that we have a volunteer lay clegy. . . I suspect that if you polled a 100 TBMs and asked if mission presidents, deservedly or not, receive approximately 100k a year in the equivalent of a salary, the majority would be surprised. But again, that’s just my opinion. . .
The idea that the average mission president receives $100,000 or even $75,000 or even half that in financial support from the church on an annual basis strikes me as very unlikely. But the fact of the matter is that we are just guessing. I’ll leave it to others who are betters guessers than I am to speculate as to what the ultimate number is, but my own gut instinct is that you are way off here. Is it possible, in an exceptional case, that a mission president with a bunch of kids gets this much help? Maybe, but the church is just so cheap when it comes to these sorts of things, I would be surprised. And as it stands, I simply see no evidence that mission presidents are getting rich on the church’s dime. In virtually every case, these people will be financially worse off after their mission than they were before. With a “generous” salary like that, I think I’d pass.
When the church talks about a volunteer lay clergy, I have always understood that they are talking about bishops, stake presidents, and other local leaders. I have never read those comments as meaning that no one who works on the church’s behalf in any capacity receives any financial support. But put that aside for the moment.
At present, there are 7,467 branches, 21,444 wards, 580 districts, 3,005 stakes in the church. (http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/statistics/units/) Those units are, in fact, all staffed by lay clergy. In contrast, there are about 350 mission presidents. If you were to lump in those mission presidents with just the bishops, branch presidents, and stake presidents, leaving aside all of their counselors and other auxiliary leaders, mission presidents represent a vanishingly small fraction of the total — about 0.1%. The most you can say is that mission presidents are the exception that prove the lay clergy rule. Seriously, there are bigger fish to fry than complaining that the generic statements about Mormon lay clergy do not come with a disclosure statement outlining the mission president exception, assuming that mission presidents are even intended to come within the scope of the term (and I still don’t know of a statement by the church that makes that suggestion).
I’m not trying to critique the blog post; I’m just talking. So if I’m conflating things, then I’m conflating things. They’re all tangled up in my mind. That’s all.
Understood. My only point is that it is necessary to tease that out when discussing these issues.
Replying to myself since I can’t reply to Randy (too many nested comments).
Sure. And this discussion has been helpful to me in that regard.
I agree that I would not want mission presidents (and their wives) to be *punished* career-wise for agreeing to do a very difficult job for the church. And I don’t begrudge housekeepers and other household help, etc. I sure as heck don’t want the mission presidents’ wives to be consigned to be maids for 3 years (God forbid).
I’m still hung up on the college tuition, but that’s just what I have on the brain as those college days approach for me.
Also, I don’t like the secrecy of what’s in the handbook. It feels like sneaking around to me to advise the mission presidents to keep it all a secret.
Add to that the fact that people go ape sh*t if you even raise this issue–as if it’s blasphemy to discuss it–and I think we have a cultural problem within the church. The idea that we just give money with no expectation of knowing what’s done with it bothers me.
And yes, now I’ve covered 14 different topics in this one response . . . ;)
Agreed on all counts, Heather.
Frankly, the way the mission president handbook is worded is malpractice. You never, ever write something like this without the thought that one day, inevitably, it is going to be made public. All the sneakiness is unnecessary. They could have just said something like: “The Church has had its tax experts undertake a careful and thorough analysis of the legal issues relating to whether the financial support provided to mission presidents constitutes ‘income’ for tax purposes. Our experts have concluded that it is not and thus need not be reported as such. If you have questions about this determination, please feel free contact us.” I’m sure this could be improved, but you get the idea. There is simply no reason that the church has to continue committing these unforced errors.
@Mark, I believe there are those who would sacrifice, no matter how much “compensation” they were offered. It is possible your MP was one of those. I know there are such people.
@Brent, 6:00 p.m., I have had the same concern. I have been aware of these things for many years, and I don’t really care. Everyone will eventually account to Jesus Christ, so what does it matter? But there are many people in the church for whom the shock factor could cause chaos. If there are enough of those people, I do fear what could happen. Even if, according to those who are comfortable with upper middle class salaries, the church leaders are being fair, there are too many people who have invested in the “voluntary” image, as you put it, to be able to handle the emotional/spiritual turmoil.
This article is so skewed on how they word things that it makes it anything but informative. All this author wants to do is make the LDS church and its members look greedy and wealthy.
Here the author complains that the employees working for the church (not all necessarily LDS) get paid too much, with an average of 80k. Then the author twists it and says that the apostles must be getting paid more. I bet if they were getting paid 50k or less, then the author would twist it the other way and say that the apostles are keeping all the money to themselves.
Bottom line: If you hate some church for some unknown reason you have lost your logic and are only running off your foundation-less emotions (this author). No facts necessary here.
For those who desire a return to full financial disclosure consider signing and sharing this:
http://bycommonconsent.org/
The “bottom line” here is that most LDS don’t really realize what it means for the church to be a corporation. Until sometime during Brigham Young’s presidency the church was a church, just a church. Joseph Smith did not incorporate the church. I don’t know the reasons for the church becoming a corporation, but since it became one it has behaved as a corporation, and as corporations the world over have become more aggressive, and as earnings have become more stratified, so has the corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This isn’t a criticism of the church; this is simply stating the fact of what corporations are and what they do. It doesn’t take anger towards the church for a person to state this. I, personally, would love very dearly to see the church become a church again, as, I believe, it was intended in the beginning. For those who believe that corporations are neutral, then this issue is a neutral issue. For those who believe that corporations are problematic, this is a problematic situation.
marginalizedmormon, have you read the book The Hole in Our Gospel? If not, you should. It was totally mind blowing to me, as a Mormon (it’s written by a fundamentalist Christian).
I’m not sure why this matters. All we have, even our ability to “move our limbs freely”, comes from God. We are commanded to pay tithing. What the church organization does with those tithes is thankfully not in our protocal to consider. If the church leaders unrighteously use our tithes, which are given in righteousness, then God will bring about a solution in His time. We have fulfilled out committment to God by paying our tithes and we will be blessed for it, as promised. On a smaller scale, this is no different than worrying about what a homeless person may do with cash that he/she is given. We are commanded to give and that is all. Whether that person is actually needy, what they do with our charitable donation,etc., is not our issue to consider and frankly I’m grateful for that direction. Either we believe in this restored Gospel or we do not. We cannot pick and choose what commandments we will follow. If we choose to not pay our tithes, or to pay our tithes with resentment or doubt, then what’s the point of following any of the Gospel principles (Word of Wisdom, mission service, temple attendance)? I’m sure we could find reasons to doubt any one or all of those directives. Being a faithful tithe payer benefits ME and my family. It strengthens my testimony and builds my faith. If others benefit in any way from my tithes then I am grateful for the opportunity to also serve others as I am served and supported daily by my Heavenly Father.
@KellyC, I do believe you are correct in stating the blessings of paying tithing. I know people from other churches who pay tithing and receive abundant blessings as well. Finding out what is happening on a corporate level in the church really doesn’t have anything to do with tithing for those of us who have had the kinds of experiences with tithing that keep us paying it.
This is a simple matter of knowing the truth–and LDS have been commanded to seek out the truth. I do believe there are those who place too much trust in the “brethren” who would leave the church immediately if they knew the things that are being discussed on this “blog”. Those of us who know about what is happening and still want to pay our tithing have an obligation to try to help those among us who are weaker. I have helped several people whose faith is weak not leave the church, because I have spoken to them about these things in a logical way, in a gentle way. These same people have found out things about the “church” from other, less faithful, sources and have struggled enormously. We are admonished to strengthen our brethren. We are admonished to help those among us who are weak, so those of us who can handle these things and sort them out can help others sort them out as well. Many of our weaker brothers and sisters will find these things out, but the sources will be cruel. I didn’t see anything but humor in this blog essay, but I have also known about these things for many years, and I have continued to pay my tithing. I am marginalized, quite literally. I can’t say how or why on here, because my situation is unique, but I am a temple-attending LDS who has been marginalized. I don’t use the term in bitterness; I use it in truth. I pay my tithing in spite of what has happened to me and in spite of what I know about the corporation of the church. Truth really does set us free. All of this knowledge has assisted me in seeing my brethren who lead the church with greater compassion and also to have more concern for them, and all of this knowledge has assisted me in looking to Jesus Christ, rather than trusting in the arm of flesh.
@Heather, I’ll check that out. Thank you.
@marginalizedmormon – it sounds like you were blessed with a stronger testimony during a “trial of your faith”. Maybe you should change your name to @fullyconverted :). I aspire to also be strengthened by my trials and not diminished. Sometimes I success, sometimes I fail. I think you are right in looking to Christ always. He has overcome the world and will certainly help me to overcome my weaknesses. Blessings to you!
Hypothetical mission president, going down the list, assuming an average family for a year: medical expenses (2k), rent (2k per month, or 24k), living expenses (1k per month or 12k), cars ($500 per month, or 6k), clothing (2k), family activites (1k), phone calls (1k), air travel for family (2k), modest gifst (1k), mission support (5k), school expenses (varies greatly, but private school in a foreign country, two kids, easily 1k per month or 12k), other activities (two kids,$300 per month, or 3.6k), through in another 3-4k for the other categories, and you get close to 80k. I suspect in that in many instances, this number is much higher. My mission president, for example, lived in a house in Spain that would probably rent today for 7-8k a month, for example. These are fairly low estimates in my opinion.
It’s not just mission presidents (that’s just the start). It is EVERYONE at the top. Everyone that runs the organization above the stake president level (and all the associated staff and support systems). I heard some reliable estimates that suggest that missions costs, on average, about a million dollars a years (including everything). That puts the mission bill at around 350 million a year. What does the church office building, including all the employee salaries, etc. cost to run? These aren’t small numbers.
The points is that the church isn’t run by a lay volunteer clergy. It’s administered at the lower levels (stake presidents, bishops) by volunteers, but they couldn’t do what they do without considerable support and direction from corporate HQ (i.e. Salt Lake).
At the end of the day, it seems like we agree. We need more transparency.
Well I suppose it all depends on how you count.
For example, you include $24,000 a year in home rental costs. But keep in mind that these people already have homes that they are required to leave behind in order to serve. That does not mean, of course, that they get a pass on the obligations that go with home ownership. Instead, they have to continuing paying on any mortgage as well as all property taxes. And of course, they get exactly no help with that. Instead, they are offered another place to live. Substitute living quarters. That is simply not the same as getting $24,000 in salary. The same thing could be said about the cars and other items. Regardless, if you told 100 members that mission presidents get to live in the mission home and are given access to mission vehicles, I’d be willing to bet that few if any would see that as (1) a surprise, or (2) the equivalent of getting paid. On a final note here, I find it telling that we are still talking about what the church supposedly said about the support it provides to mission presidents, and no one can point to an actual statement by the church.
“It’s not just mission presidents (that’s just the start). It is EVERYONE at the top.” Okay, so let’s be clear. Who are you including in the “at the top” classification? Everyone who works at the church office building? If so, that’s simply disingenuous. First of all, few of these people beyond the 1P and Q12 can fairly be classified as “at the top.” Most are low level bureaucrats, secretaries, and administrators. Second, the church has never said or implied, at least to my knowledge, that they do not hire employees to administer church business. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it. I don’t think you do. Like you, I wish the church would make public disclosures about its income, expenditures, etc. But not because I or anyone else have been operating under the delusion that the COB was filled with volunteers when in fact those folks get paid (and, truth be told, generally underpaid) for their work. Good grief, the church publicly advertises when it’s looking to hire! If the fact that the church has paid employees is a secret, it has to be the worst kept secret in the history of secrets. Third, virtually without exception, the people who work at the COB aren’t clergy. When the church says it has a volunteer lay clergy, it means just that — a lay *clergy*. It doesn’t mean that its lawyers are all working pro bono, or it has no paid accountants, etc. It means that the individuals *who act as clergy* don’t get paid. And with precious few exceptions, like the 1P and Q12, exceptions the church acknowledges, they don’t.
Again, I get the beef with respect to transparency. You’re right that we agree on that. But let’s at least be frank about what we know and don’t know.
Exactly Brent! We/the Lord in DC 104 and even President Hinckley all agree that financial information belongs to us donors, so we need more transparency. So let’s give our voice to the Petition at bycommonconsent.org and share it.
My problems, are the one of disclosure, then the different standard for common folk and those on the leadership career path. I also think those past retirement age should be living on their retirement but having their travel expenses paid. Apostles should also be retired at 72.
My parents were called on a building mission in 1960. They were still on a building mission when the programe changed(about 1967) and were then paid a salary. While on a mision they were paid some kind of allowance suitable for retired americans, but they had four sons. They sold their house and when my father was retired he was destitute.
One of the things that rankled me as a youth, was that while we were struggling financially, Bro Haight was called as the mission pres. He was reputed to be wealthy. MP usually drove high end GM products Vauxall crestas in Scotland. He drove a Jaguar. Most local memebers could not afford cars. We were provided with an Austin a 50 utillity with a canvas cover over the back, which had 3 seats and others rode in the back on wooden planks. When my parents went into church service I was 12, and my parents owned their own home, when they left they had nothing and are now in theior 80s and living in rented accomodation.
I find the idea that our leaders (usually American) might be becoming wealthy, and on the church career path, to a lifetime well paid job, quite problematic.
“Wherein have ye robbed God? In tithes and offerings…” The robbing in the OT was not on the part of the widows, the oppressed, hireling and the poor. It was on the part of the Levite priests that would take (“rob”) the money from the poor and use it to amass lands, holdings, spectacular buildings, and not take it to the “storehouse for the poor” It is the way of the world and no new thing under the sun
This is an interesting post and discussion. I grew up in Salt Lake City in the 50s and 60s and, though I was always taught that the LDS Church had a lay ministry, I also always knew that the General Authorities were supported by the Church. I have no idea what people think, or are told, is the case these days, but it really only makes sense that they are paid, because they clearly work full time for the Church. I also think that many members would not be put off by how much money the GAs receive, because GAs are really given celebrity status by most Church members, and it seems expected that they (the GAs) would have special privilages and be well compensated. To be truthful, it is that celebrity status that bothers me much more than the financial compensation. They are treated like demi-gods, and some of them fully expect and enjoy the status. Though I find it highly unethical to hide the finances from Church members, I believe that these men (and women–the auxiliary leaders) should be paid. But then, I think all clergy, at least down to the level of bishop, should receive some financial compensation. When my own husband served as bishop, it was a significant financial strain on our family (not to mention the emotional toll). At one point, I did the math and figured out that with tithing, fast offerings, budget (a requirement in those days), and the expenses that went along with him being bishop, almost 20% of our gross income was going directly to the Church, and it was not a large income (he was a library director) and we had four young children. When my dad served as a mission president (1978-1981), my mother told me that the money they received monthly from the Church never covered all of their expenses, and they were used to living frugally (my mother was an accountant).I agree 100% with this post when it comes to financial transparency. When members put so much of their own resources into the Church, they have a right to know how it is being spent. I don’t have a problem (in principle) with leaders receiving financial compensation. It is a corporation, and they work for the corporation. We just need to call a spade a spade and be above board about it all. (And I detest a lot of the corporate spending, like the mall, but that is another story.)
I’d like to briefly address the suggestion made upthread, that the church should not be a corporation.
The thing is, we already tried that, and the result was schism and the succession crisis of 1844. During Joseph Smith’s life, there was no clear division between Smith family finances and church finances. He incurred debts on behalf of the church, but in his own name; there was no corporation which could act on behalf of the church, so he had to do it all on his own account. The debts from buying land around Nauvoo for the new converts from Europe, the debts incurred from the Red Brick Store (where Smith allowed everybody to purchase on credit and never billed anybody), the tithing receipts, everything was commingled with his and Emma’s own personal affairs.
Much of the animosity which eventually developed between Emma Smith and Brigham Young can be attributed to a fundamental disagreement about money. Emma was penniless, and Brigham Young had his back against the wall, with thousands of people he needed to move and no funds to move them. I do not think it is a stretch at all to believe that if Joseph Smith had formed a corporation (or whatever the 1840 equivalent was) to handle the church’s finances, the crisis that resulted upon his death might have been averted.
I would agree, except that Brigham Young borrowed heavily from tithing funds, which is why the Beehive House and Lion House went, not to his children, but to the church upon his death. John Taylor had a mess to sort out from all of this.
The idea that Brigham Young did a wise or selfless thing to incorporate the church clashes with fact of how freely he used church funds.
I believe the financial problems could have been solved with consecration. The Lord stated it clearly in the D&C. Money can go to a person’s head; there are few who can manage it without acrimony or greed.
In an interview with Spiegel after his call to the First Presidency, Uchtdorf said he lives off his Lufthansa pension:
“The Mormons want their teachings to be that simple, which is why they don’t have an elitist body of priests to develop elaborate interpretations of their faith. Theirs is a lay church. But the laypersons receive no money from the church: On the contrary, they donate a 10th of what they earn. Uchtdorf, for example, lives off his Lufthansa pension. And he says he has no right to a house or other comforts in Salt Lake City. At most, apostles like him receive compensation for their travel costs.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-mormon-goes-west-the-german-apostle-a-491890.html
Interesting.
I agree that this is possible (about Uchtdorf), if not probable. I have no doubt (and I know of instances) that there are those who are frugal and careful with the church’s/Lord’s money.
I said as much above (that there are those who sacrifice), but I also believe there may be those who have grown accustomed to the wealth and the stipends and think very little of it or think very much about the sacrifices being made by the poor widow in Mexico.
oops, that’s “don’t think very much about the sacrifices made by the poor widow in Mexico.”
That is interesting, John. But I don’t think that is the whole story either. I’m suspect Uchtdorf is being truthful here, as least as the facts pertain to him. But hasn’t the church previously acknowledged that the 1P and Q12 do in fact receive a living allowance of some sort and not just reimbursement for travel costs? Perhaps Uchtdorf just doesn’t need / want it?
As for Mission Presidents, if you read in the handbook a little further it gives the reason for them not to discuss Church reimbursements with their financial advisors:
“If you have any questions about tax matters, contact the Church Tax Division, which has tax rulings and research that support the validity of not reporting as income the funds you receive as mission president. Because most tax advisers are unaware of this information, their advice may be incorrect.”
I also know of a number of GAs who became wealthy before becoming General Authorities and who did not take a living allowance from the Church. N. Eldon Tanner was one of these. To my knowledge he never accepted a dime. Spencer W. Kimball lived in a tiny tract home in SLC and, for most of his presidencey, drove an old Maverick to his office and back – much to the chagrin of Church Security, which wanted him to ride in an armored limo. He caved after the bombings surrounding the Salamander Letters.
I don’t think Church leaders are getting rich off the Church. I think the only real issue here is the transparency of financial activities, which I am all for.
I wanted to be erudite and gracious but gave that up pretty quickly. Simply stated, the author of this piece is as full of crap as a Christmas turkey.
In terms of the mission presidents, they don’t get enough. Our first mission prez is a young man, still one daughter at home, who gave up a lucrative law practice for three years. He can’t invest his stipend, as per the article, so the prez lives on it. Our current prez is in his fifties, but he also gave up a reportedly very lucrative financial practice for three years. Our son’s prez years back was young and gave up a tenured professorship in Spanish at a community college. Near the end of our son’s mission, he contacted me because his prez wanted to know if I could help him find a new position. My guess is that counter to what the author said, all the LDS people I know would not want to change their meager little jobs for all the stipends available to be a mission prez. Or at least the stipend, financial compensation would be the last of their concerns, the bottom of the list. The mission prez jobs are very literally, if you will excuse the cliché, 24/7 for three years. Our current prez told me today that no one in his right mind would take on the mission call with its responsibilities and financial losses. They do the work and do it well, not because the stipends sustain them, but because the Holy Ghost sustains them, something I suspect the author doesn’t understand.
Relative to the church Prez and the Quorum members, the writer is only speculating, as he says. He sounds like an anthropologist: We can infer. . .it is probable. . .most likely. . .without hard evidence we can surmise. . .surely a reasonable person would also conclude. . ..
Nearly forty years ago when our first child was a baby and I was in graduate school at the University of Utah, I was driving on Highland Drive with my little girl (about two years old). Along came a little Nash Rambler with Jesse Smith driving her husband, Pres Joseph Fielding Smith, beside us. I shouted at the baby, only two, to look at and wave to the prophet. She wasn’t impressed. I wonder what he was doing with his big stipend. That same year when I was working at a gas station, one night a Ford Fairlane pulled up and a big man got out to pump his gas out our self-serve Husky station. His credit card read Thomas S. Monson. I asked him if he was the real Elder Monson, to which he laughed and admitted to it. Driving a Ford and pumping his own gas? I wonder what he was doing with his huge stipend. They can’t invest it, according to the author, which must be true; otherwise it would be income and subject to tax.
You may already know that the Church is very, very cautious about getting crosswise with the IRS because the Church wants to preserve the exempt status. Maintaining that status means that IRS auditors have access to much of the financial operations. If there were monkey business, the IRS would pounce.
In terms of the writers, or at least the author in question, he reminds me of the typical socialist, statists which are rampant these days. He is jealous of what he surmises someone else has and he doesn’t want that person to have it. King Benjamin not only scolds those who have and don’t share with the poor, he scolds those who look with greed and envy on those who do have. For my part, I am happy for the financially successful when it is gained through legal means. If the brethren receive little or huge stipends, to me it isn’t enough, it could never be enough.
Finally, in terms of the writers, especially those who may be members or inactive or former members, they have every right to think about things and dig into questions they have. Eventually, they and we all must deal with obedience and adherence to principle and doctrine. Years ago I used to read a lot of articles that were out on the fringe of standard LDS thinking and dogma. I found myself getting too close to the edge of the abyss and knew that staying away was better. I continue to have enough trouble dealing with the little I understand and keeping the commandments I understand. . .and those I don’t understand. . .without speculating on something that was recently discovered by some new historian. I have had enough life experience with strange, weird church things that get bruited about in newspapers and elsewhere to know that truth will out eventually, and that truth so far always favors the brethren. I decided long ago always to follow the righteous examples of the brethren and sisters even knowing that they too struggle on a daily basis to resist temptations.
I remember Sister Woodbury telling us her husband, a Mission President in 1960, had put in a requisition for a expensive Jaguar Mark IX to the Church headquarters. His request was rejected and he was told he was only allowed a Chevy (I have used a comparison car). He protested and said the church needed to change and since he goes to activities at Buckingham Palace he would need a Jaguar. He got his Jaguar but I don’t know if the “widow in Mexico” paid for it or it came out of his own pocket. He was an owner of an aircraft parts supplier. Years later I saw the Jaguar parked on the street in London covered in dirt with flat tires. You get the picture.
We can look at our children and tell them if they work hard they to can be a GA someday and have a credit card to use as they wish. Having said that if the GA have a lot of wealth they don’t live high off the hog like the rest of the world does. My point is they live modestly. Who knows they may sign over their material goods before being called.
I agree some GA enjoy and expect their celebrity status. I don’t see the Savior living that way. I know, they are not the Savior.
Some have mentions the tax laws in the UK and Canada being different and I have looked up the churches tax filings. It is my understanding that contributions to the church by members have by law they are to remain, pin this case, in the UK. I have read, and wish I knew where I read it, that church is the largest private land owner in England.
I for one am glad the church does not reveal its finances.
3611 [url=http://www.i-newswire.com/small-business-web-design-services/192949]small business web design[/url] small business website design new york lwrubojys2lv1, 9174 facebook hack xss [url=http://bestfacebookhack.com/]facebook hack december 2012[/url] facebook hack mobile 7xqydd, 8720 [url=http://usepheromones.webs.com/]pheromones queen witcher 2[/url] pheromones how they work
The allowance, at a minimum, is subject to self employment tax and is required to be shown on the federal income tax return.
PER IRS
http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources/Tools-&-FAQs/FAQs-for-Individuals/Frequently-Asked-Tax-Questions-&-Answers/Interest,-Dividends,-Other-Types-of-Income/Ministers'-Compensation-&-Housing-Allowance/Ministers'-Compensation-&-Housing-Allowance
: A minister receives a salary plus a housing allowance. Is the housing allowance income? Where does the minister report it?
Answer:
A minister’s housing allowance, sometimes called a parsonage allowance or a rental allowance is excludable from gross income for income tax purposes, but not for self-employment tax purposes.
If you are a minister and receive as part of your salary (for services as a minister) an amount officially designated as a rental allowance, you can exclude from gross income the lesser of the following amounts:
-the amount actually used to provide or rent a home;
-the fair market rental value of the home (including furnishings, utilities, garage, etc.);
-the amount officially designated (in advance of payment) as a rental or housing allowance, or
-an amount which represents reasonable pay for your services;
The payments must be used in the year received.
The amount of the allowance that cannot be excluded should be entered with your wages on line 7 of Form 1040 (PDF).
If, instead of a housing allowance, your congregation furnishes housing in kind as pay for your services as a minister, you may exclude the value of the housing from income, but you must include the fair market rental value of the housing in net earnings from self-employment for self-employment tax purposes.
For additional information on a minister’s housing allowance, refer to Publication 517, Social Security and Other Information for Members of the Clergy and Religious Workers.
For information on earnings for clergy and reporting of self-employment tax, refer to Tax Topic 417, Earnings for Clergy.
This link below links to a page that shows an image of the home that current President of the Church, Thomas Monson lived in since becoming an Apostle in the 1960’s. Monson has served on many of the aforementioned boards for decades, some of which manage multi-billion dollar, worldwide companies as was stated.
http://www.moroni10.com/prophets_homes/Thomas_Monson.html
Here is a link to a photo of 2 time National Champion Alabama Crimson Tide Football Coach Nick Saban’s house:
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/louisiana/45091-nick-sabans-house-posted-bamafan.html
Any guesses as to which one is a modest home?
Sorry I may have missed it but did you provide a link for the Canadian employee information? That would be helpful.
It has always been that absolute power corrupts absolutely I don’t see that LDS has any better concept of God than any other church to protect them so of course the more well placed one is the more corrupt one will become. It is the nature of man after all Law 27.
Again there is an easy solution but it might require some collective nudging—full financial transparency as God intended with full “voice and common consent’ as to all funds take from the treasury of the church.
http://bycommonconsent.org/
I believe that one of the greatest revelations given to mankind is found in D&C 121, given to Joseph Smith at probably one of the most trying times in his life. There is so much wisdom and truth contained in this revelation.
The older (and hopefully wiser) I get, and the more I learn about the world and the “natural man” (Mosiah 3:19), all the while trying to discern with the help of the spirit, the more I realize the significance of these enlightened words:
“Behold, there are many called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men. . . “(D&C121:34-35)
I believe the “called but (not) chosen” phrase is in direct reference to those “inside” the church, in positions of leadership. And then we have these words:
“We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” (D&C 121:39)
I believe that this describes many in the world, “outside” and “inside” the church. In fact, it seems to be the norm, and exemptions to this are rare. Again, as the Lord indicated, “almost all men” are afflicted with such wordily instincts when they reach a certain level of authority, or economic prosperity, or position of power. It is sad, but it is what it is.
Just my thoughts. Anyway, the most comforting doctrine to me is that eventually Christ will come and set things right.
An interesting memorandum from Grant H. Palmer appears at http://mormonthink.com/grant9.htm
Grant H. Palmer, former teacher in the LDS Church Educational System for 34 years, historian and author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” and “The Incomparable Jesus” provides a memorandum of the three meetings he had with a General Authority in 2012/13.
The following is an excerpt from that memorandum written by Grant H. Palmer.
“He said that each new member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is given one million dollars to take care of any financial obligations they have. This money gift allows them to fully focus on the ministry. He said that the overriding consideration of who is chosen is whether they are “church broke,” meaning, will they do whatever they are told. He said the senior six apostles make the agenda and do most of the talking.”
And for why Palmer’s memorandum is probably BS:
http://mormanity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/does-grant-palmer-really-claim-to-have.html
What about the memorandum is difficult for you? Would you in your own words give a summation of why you believe that Mr. Palmer has probably concocted the story? I could send you to any number of writings alleging that the general authorities are habitually, verifyably less than honest, but I shall not. I really fail to see why Grant Palmer would fabricate the story.
I really fail to see why Grant Palmer would fabricate the story.
Really?!
Yes, sir; it has been suggested that perhaps Grant Palmer would have concocted the story/wrote a fictitious memorandum/lied all of these things to increase sales of his books ‘An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins’ and ‘The Incomparable Jesus’ and/or because he was bitter about having been disfellowshipped in 2004 for writing his first book. First, he realizes that making truth known, especially now more than ever at his age, is paramount. Second, payment from book sales is nominal.
If people want to lay the charge of fraud against him, like FAIR, who is ever and always about protecting image and multiplying words — in my view, they ought to first look to the prophet Joseph Smith for yet another case study, which Grant relates as follows:
What Joseph Smith’s Four Foundational Visions have in Common
“All four of the foundational visions of Joseph Smith, namely: The eight witnesses, the angel golden plate’s story, the priesthood restoration, and the first vision, reveal the same evolving pattern. All four start out as rather mundane metaphysical experiences, and then with each version the story became more literal, physical, unique, impressive, and yes miraculous. The most miraculous accounts of the priesthood restoration and his first vision are provided by Joseph Smith when he is in serious trouble with his own leadership. A witness in court that keeps telling a more miraculous version of his story each time loses credibility, their testimony becomes impeached. All of this evidence is detailed in, An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, chapters 5-8.”
James, have a very enjoyable weekend.
It’s interesting to me that you readily impute bad motives to Joseph Smith and modern GAs and at the same time uncritically accept the word of Grant Palmer. That seems naive to me.
“A witness in court that keeps telling a more miraculous version of his story each time loses credibility, their testimony becomes impeached.” That’s Joseph Smith – narcissistic personality disorder overlaid with pseudologia fantastica. I wouldn’t pin all my hopes on the sleeve of that fellow. As for general authorities, their disingenuity is a matter of public record. What goes around comes around.
But that doesn’t really get at your uncritical acceptance of Grant Palmer though, does it?
What would you like me to criticize him about?
If you can’t see the gaping holes in the credibility of the alleged Palmer memorandum after reading Jeff Lindsay’s response, nothing I have the time or inclination to write will be persuasive. Wishing you a very enjoyable weekend too.
Thank you! I second that. . .
In the end, most of what Stephen is stating as facts are just personal interpretations or ideas. Do your research and present data coming from reliable resources, not a single man’s narcissistic and egocentric fairytale which, conveniently enough, cannot be confirmed by anybody, not even by the dates he made up in his story.
I’m not an active member of the Church anymore, yet I cannot phantom how someone would dedicate so much effort and energy in hating any institution. In the end the Church goes on with or without you (I realize that’s what’s killing them inside the most) and will continue to do so with or without your useless malicious queries.
Anybody with an actual purpose in life, whether they may be dedicated to work, or their family, or self-improvement, cannot have the extra time these people are dedicating to this and that to me is where their credibility ends together with my respect and consideration for their voice. . . in other words, GET A LIFE PEOPLE!
Or how about this? How about members of the LDS church, who contribute about $5 billion a year in donations, demand more transparency. . . The church used to provide detailed accounting reports up until the 50s or so. . . it should go back to that practice.
Perhaps. . .but in reality the members who contribute $5 billion/year in donations are not asking such questions or demanding more transparency because they trust the Church’s Leadership or they wouldn’t be donating their tithes every month. The other thing is that the Church membership has grown exponentially since the 50’s, from a little over 1.1 mil to today’s almost 15 mil. Therefore, expecting that the same type of reports or transparency be distributed today is in my opinion not practical and unnecessary. I can also understand how certain information is best kept private, not because they are doing anything illicit, but because it could be distorted and misunderstood by most people, just like most parents understand that they should keep some conversations private because their children could not benefit from them.
Who cares what the church does as long as it remains true to moral and ethical guidelines and helps the poor…. “Judge not, that ye be not judged . For with what judgment ye judge , ye shall be judged : and with what measure ye mete , it shall be measured to you again . And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold , a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:1-5)
How do you know that the church is true morally and ethically — because of simple say-so and experience of warm and welcome feelings?
Why is the church not transparent with their financials as are the overwhelming, vast majority of other churches? What are they hiding? Why are no audits available? Why does the church give meagerly compared to other churches?
Why is the church owned by a corporation? Why is the church supported in attempting to serve two masters – God and mammon? Consider City Creek Center as clear indication of this gross, worldly conflict of interest, not paid with tithes directly, but paid with tithes which bought the investments that produced the capital to build City Creek Center.
Your use of the Bible is that of taking meaning out of context. The devil, appearing as an angel of light, is very able to quote and misapply such verses and divert money for his purposes, if we are not careful about context and in consideration of the whole counsel of God as revealed in Scripture. Satan quoted verses even to Jesus during His wilderness attempting to mislead Him. Please, do not be naïve.
Let it be luminously clear, the Lord expects us to be good and wise stewards of all that which He has entrusted us. As Paul admonishes, we are to take personality responsibility to know — actually know — those with whom we labor, lest we come to regret. The Spirit does not want us so open minded that our brains have fallen out.
As church heirachy is not forthright in bringing to the light that which they have been doing with the money entrusted to them, before God and unto God, we should refuse being complicit in their suffering fools gladly. They have shown themselves unworthy of trust.
I know because I’m a member of the church. I know because there are few other religions or organizations who do more for the poor and needy than the LDS church. I know that there are no questions as to their financial usage because my father works as an accountant for the church in Salt Lake City. It is a non profit organization that works acts of good and does no harm to anyone.
it harmed me but not beyond repair. i have actually found spirituality and all thanks to the cult i was raised in. thank you LDS church/cult for helping me see the light!!
Shut up your pathetic
wait, aren’t you Mormons NOT supposed to be reading this stuff, much less participating in a debate over it? i was taught that i was not to read this stuff when i was still programmed LDS…. i mean its fine and all but why don’t you start reading approved literature such as the Journal of Discourses or the Book of Commandments – exactly how i lost my testimony or uhm, found the truth. but please don’t be one of “those” mormons that knows that its all bullsh*t and still attend the church and temple – have the guts to stand up for the truth folks. its right in your own scripture…
Hi Barb, It’s kinda funny how that works isn’t it. I’m a deeply convicted mormon. I decided years ago that I wanted to be able to stand up for my beliefs spiritually, intellectually, and philosophically. There certainly are some foggy topics, but this is hardly newsworthy. It’s amusing how hard people work to discredit the LDS church. If the same efforts were given to discrediting Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, or Presbyterians, do you think they would continue to grow like the LDS Church? Nope. The truth marches on. Hater may hate, but there is obviously a reason why all the negativity is hitting an organization hell-bent on good. Just sayin’, you should look into it more.
i know the church is not true. i know this. period. as far as your name for the blog (mine is real, chicken-shit), you’re the hater. duh…
Barb,
I just want to say that I completely understand how you feel. If it is hard for someone to convert, I think that is nothing compared to the struggles one must go through in order to eventually leave the Church. They see it as mere laziness, or rebellion, or even worse that we simply give in to “earthly pleasures.” So I understand how fed up you are to be treated like the lesser one, but like you said it takes guts to be in the position you are in now and twice as much the courage to decide to think on your own, do your own research, and eventually decide to leave in spite of the pressure to stay. I converted when I was 18, served my full time mission, graduated from BYU, and lost my virginity when I was 28 yo. My life would have been so much easier had I stayed. NYC is a tough city to live in for anyone let alone an innocent single 26 yo man who had to learn the hard way how sheltered he had been all along. I don’t regret anything I did, I learned a lot, I have great memories, and have nothing against the Church. I just feel like I outgrew it. I remember how as a missionary I could not understand how someone could go inactive, I thought that those who did must have been miserable and could not fully find happiness in their life. Now that I’ve stepped back I smile when I think of how naive I was. My faith grew as I built my own relationship with God. Today, I can only look back at the members of the Church and think that they either don’t have the guts or simply choose to believe cause that’s what they need. Their life is much easier and they simply cannot understand us as much as we can understand them. . .so don’t take it personally and let them be.
Its like you learn my mind! You appear to grasp a lot about this, like you wrote
the book in it or something. I feel that you could do with a
few % to force the message home a little bit,
but other than that, that is wonderful blog. An excellent read.
I will certainly be back.
my web site :: atlantic city escorts
Back to the actual article content, rather than the anti-rant that has almost nothing to do with the article. I found my eyebrow raising at the tone of the article, as some have mentioned. However, when the “church corp organization chart” was copied and pasted from that lousy, misleading article in BusinessWeek, it confirmed what I had suspected. This “speculation” is merely veiled accusation.
All of this back and forth on what mission presidents “make” is quite laughable. Anyone who has ever known a mission president can tell you the “living expenses” provided to them are usually far below what they are used to in terms of what they provided for themselves. Taking a 3-year hiatus from usually fairly lucrative careers should confirm what anyone ever connected to the mission program can tell you- you will suffer financially for the time you agree to serve. One is expected to grow and reap spiritual rewards, possibly even as a result of this deprivation, if not in spite of it. And for the one who pasted links regarding a rent stipend for ministers, try to keep in mind that mission presidents DON’T get a rent stipend. They get the USE of a house owned by the church, rent free. For 3 years. While their own home expenses still continue on. The church’s accountants no doubt advised this exact setup to avoid mission presidents being burdened by tax debt related to their mission service. Especially as they are still liable for their entire tax burdens on their holdings at home, while they are in the field WITH NO INCOME. They are driving a car that does not and never will belong to them, living in a house that is the same, with utilities, food, fuel, etc. paid for by the church because they have no wherewithal to do it for themselves. Those of you who claim they would be “happy” to have that living stipend as their “income”, please try to remember that during this time you don’t get to live for yourself. You are on call 24/7 on business that has nothing to do with you personally, nor your family. There is precious little “personal time” for any mission president or his family, and it truly is a great sacrifice for those who choose to accept the calling. THIS is why MP is the go-to calling for any prospective GA. Because you HAVE to learn to give up YOUR life, your wants, your goals, and accept instead to live your life in service to others. It is just as rigorous as, and somewhat more stressful than, any cloistered monk or nun with a vow of poverty. Because not only are you making this decision of sacrifice for yourself, you are making it for your family.
Everyone seems to get the Church so mixed up with the church corp. Surely it is easy to do so, since funds from church corp are freely spent on church enterprises. And everyone is demanding “financial transparency”. It is very reminiscent of the attitude I’ve seen from several business partners after I’ve concluded a thorough audit of a partnership in dispute (I’m a forensic accountant). Of course, one or more of the partners will demand a detailed accounting and stare at the usual financial documents. After much study, they will inevitably conclude that someone is “ripping them off” because they see that the business is not as lucrative as they had assumed. Especially because the disputes usually arise when they feel they have had profits withheld from them in some manner. While that does happen, and I of course spend much time in related litigation reporting and even criminal proceedings, by and large the conclusions simply come down to either poor money management on someone’s part or inadequate oversight on someone else’s.
There are numerous “hidden” expenses as the cost of doing business that no lay person without a great deal of financial experience would understand. Someone of low education in this regard looking at a normal statement of profits and losses can quite easily, and almost always does, come to erroneous conclusions about the state of the business. So I can certainly understand how the GAs would hesitate to “Fully disclose” everything about the church’s financial affairs. But beyond that, I think of what an enormous, expensive undertaking it would be to actually come up with an accurate and overall big picture even for required tax reporting. Consider the accounting hours that would be billed, even with the below-market salaries church accountants make.
Anyone deciding to “Estimate” the church’s holdings or yearly income in this manner, or as that terribly skewed article in BusinessWeek did, is highly suspect. How can one enumerate a bunch of guesses about different revenue streams and then report it as if it were net profit, with no real mention of the expenses? As an example: a solid two paragraphs were spent interviewing and explaining the nature of Deseret Publishing. After those paragraphs, a conclusion as to how much it possibly made was presented. Not one effort was made to estimate how much even one type of expense, say, shipping costs, might cost. Anyone who has ever attended ward meetings is aware that there are lesson manuals provided by the church for each section (priesthood, Relief Society, and Sunday School), as well as study guide pamphlets. Every year, some more often. Estimate 15 million (one for each estimated church member) and ignore the extras printed (I’ve always been able to get an extra if I lost one). Now, how much did it cost to get every one of those manuals and pamphlets to the meeting house? Include international shipping charges. Did you include fuel costs? Now you can see what I mean. If BusinessWeek and this article, which I view with the same skepticism, make no mention whatsoever on how much it COSTS to run the church, then they can in no way claim to be objective if they “estimate” revenue streams or stipend allowances. How about utility costs for every church building? How about initial building material costs, not to mention building labor costs?
I can tell you this much, as an accountant: I can easily come up with reasonable figures of yearly church expenses that EXCEED the best tithe income estimates you can come up with, even if you assumed every church member was a full tithe payer. That means that many church expenses are paid by church corp. revenue, NOT by tithes and offerings. And although I might be considered a “lapsed Mormon” by many, I could never ascribe all these greedy motives being hinted at by so many to the old men in the highest church positions, because I know all too well how truly huge church expenses must be. The fact that ward bishops are still allowed to cut checks to pay the rent of some church members that have lost their jobs for a few months, at times, frankly amazes me. I have to conclude that the GAs truly are miracle workers.
The tone may be a little flippant, but I think it reflects frustration more than anything else. A few quick points: a) the church has stated several times that it does not “sum to zero” (in other words, they spend less than they take in, and therefore have “reserves”), b) no one is saying the church doesn’t have expenses, the problem is that we don’t know what these expenses are (and if we did, I think the average member would be surprised, if not upset, because “payroll” for GAs would be a very large number, as would church-sponsored universities, c) what the church does with its surplus (i.e. invest in high-end shopping malls) is an issue for many for a number of reasons, as would the extent of the church’s business interests, and d) the checks that bishops write for rent come from local fast-offerings (a different revenue stream) that is handled differently than tithing (it stays in local units instead of being sent to SL, etc.).
A better analogy would be an investor. People simply want to know that their money is being used appropriately. The church should go back to making a full and honest accounting (like it did up until the 1950s).
Dude. . . How many times are you gonna keep on saying the same things over and over again, without listening or even acknowledging some of the comments you get? Considering how clearly and eloquently Aileen has explained how flawed this whole discussion is, your comment made me come to the sad conclusion that you’re just never gonna get it. I’m gonna say this for the last time and then I’m gonna unsubscribe from what’s become a boring monologue you’re having with yourself.
Everything erroneous you’ve said so far stemmed from ignorance and when you cannot address when someone contradicts you and continue to blurt out more laughable unsubstantiated lies, “local fast-offerings (a different revenue stream)” you’re not making sense anymore. There is no point in trying to reason with the unreasonable at this point. I’m bored and a little frustrated with myself for dedicating you some time. You can continue on, as I’m sure you will, but your audience will eventually get bored and leave just like I’m doing.
Again. . .Let it go! You are not speaking on behalf of the Members of the Church as you claim. Those who pay their tithes and offerings do it out of love and are handing over their donations to the Church out of trust. . .Nobody is expecting periodic “investments reports” except you and a few others who I’m sure have not given a penny to the Church in years.
Take care of yourself and God bless us all!
Thanks for that thoughtful writeup, Aileen.
Yes, THANK YOU Aileen. . .Brava!
You are, of course, free to continue on with your head-in-the-sand-while-the-church-builds-mega-malls approach to “building Zion.” I don’t respect it, but that’s okay, I’m sure you’ll find a way to soldier on (smile).
Interesting thread. Having decades of church experience in administering welfare, seeing how the humanitarian arm of the church works, as well as being involved in private charities sponsored by LDS members, etc etc. I am amazed at how what we do as a church today vindicates the authenticity of the prophetic voice found in the Book of Mormon. I had a chance to give a lesson on any general conference address that of my choosing. I choose excerpts from Elder Scott Whiting given a year ago together with Pres. Uchtdorf in that same conference. I summed up my thoughts on this lesson in my recent post entitled “An Eighth of an Inch.”
Here is the link with a scripture from the BOM at the end that sums up belief/thinking.
http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/18th-of-an-inch/
I need everyone to declare their personal income to me. I make $96K/year. If you don’t tell me then you are not being honest and transparent with me. Also, you have something to hide that is probably much more nefarious…. Of course it is my business to know your income. Come on, tell me, I need to know!
My uncle work at church headquarters, he is underpaid. Strangely he does not want everyone to know how much money he makes.
I wouldn’t be surprised is the LDS Church releases some financial information around 2030 or so. Globalization will be more advanced by then, and the recent lust for leaks will probably have produced more hearsay information, to the point that it will be just as easy to just publish it. One thing I know, and support fully, is that the Church won’t be pressured into anything- decisions in the Church aren’t made by public opinion or an activist’s call. The Church does things on it’s own timetable, the Lord’s timetable if you will, and that’s as it should be.
Here are a few reasons that I think it is GOOD that LDS financials are private:
1. Most revenue for LDS (90%+) comes from tithing, which is meant to be a selfless, thoughtless sacrifice to God. It’s not membership fees or club dues or tit for tat as Mo-haters sometimes try to make it sound. Philosophically, tithing is supposed to be something given to God in full trust and gratitude, without any control or say over what is done with it. Publishing financials makes the LDS looks like a corporation with shareholders who have a right to “their” information, but with LDS it’s not the Church members’ money, or President Monson’s money, it’s God’s money, and we should mind our own business.
2. The focus is already too much on money. Even with private financials, LDS $$ gets alot of press. Imagine if it were all published. Every 1% increase of decrease in a certain dept’s budget would bring endless armchair analysis and gossip and useless chatter from various corners. People would think of the LDS as just another corporation. Like the first point, it’s NOT ABOUT THE MONEY, and having nondisclosed financials helps preserve that. As is, since nobody knows what they’re talking about, sensible people understand that it’s useless to chatter, and it doesn’t get as much attention.
3. Global perspectives. Between all the cost of security guards, plane tickets, food, healthcare, etc, I’m confident that the LDS spends $1M a year or so on President Monson. Sure, it doesn’t go to his bank account, and sure, he is busy at work until death and can’t ‘spend it during retirement’ anyway, but casual commentators don’t point that out. It would be all to easy for someone to grab a number, go to an investigator in SE Asia or Africa, and say “hey don’t join this church, their prophet gets $1M” or something like that. People that understand US living costs, or salaries/expenses of leaders of large organizations, would have no qualms about President Monson costing $1M, it’s actually extremely modest, but to a villager that makes $600 a year it could sound outrageous. Jesus loves the poor, and wouldn’t want them kept away from His church by misconstrued expense figures. Hopefully, by midcentury and with the help of the internet, this will be less of an issue and general understanding of finances in the 1st world will increase (hopefully, we’ll all be a 1st world).
4. Needless Drama. As soon as the Church starts publishing financials, if they were to make a mistake or something one year, even an honest mistake, there would be all sorts of uproar and speculation (are LDS leaders trying to hide something?) etc. Taking the time to do extra preparation and auditing would create additional cost for the Church without contributing to its mission.
The list goes on. As an accountant, financial statements are my specialty, and I think the LDS are wise to preserve the privacy of their finances. I would have no qualms whatsoever if each apostle was paid 250k/year to their pocket and had an additional 500k/year in expenses, but colloquial reports and hearsay, even from skeptics and haters, typically peg the actual numbers in a range much lower than that. Bottom line: this article’s title is a non issue, even for sensationalists.
The LDS are at about 15 million people right now, the USA is at about 315 million right now, so LDS are about 21 times smaller as a group. In 2012 the US Presidential Family’s total costs to taxpayers, with travel, security, personal staff, etc, was around 1.4 billion. Take 1/21 of that and you have 67 million to have a comparable amount of LDS funding per capita go toward their leader’s doings. Find me someone who knows anything about LDS HQ and thinks President Monson costs anywhere near that much, and then maybe this will be a relevant topic.
Who gives a crap? I’m atheist, but this is just anti-Mormon propaganda!
To all those contending and concerned with the monetary affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
I have been a member of the church for 25 years. I have served a mission for the Church and worked with Mission Presidents. I have met some of the Apostles of the Church. I have worked closely with Bishops and other local leaders. In my experience the funds that others, leaders and myself have benefited from are treated with great reverence for they are from the sacrifice of all the members. There is not waste. Most Mission President’s are quite wealthy and therefore do not need or require a stipend of any kind. However, many mission presidents come from poor and humble circumstances and therefore they are in need of assistance in order to serve where the prophet has asked. Just like the missionary program, those that can pay, pay for themselves and a little more so to help those individuals that are not able to pay for themselves. This is how the church functions. If you are able to make it for 50 years as an apostle without a job without assistance from the church well then no stipend would be given. However, if you are not then your basics are covered. As a missionary I found, there was not waste. We were very aware of the sacrifice our parents, ourselves, or our fellow members had made so we could have the money to be there serving. I hope all who have posted with tones of negativity toward the churches finances are able to move past this and see the good in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know that this is Christ’s Church that has been restored on the earth today. I ask you all to truly learn of the doctrine of this church and learn of the Savior.
http://www.mormon.org or www. lds.org
You are forgetting one major item in your column: All full-time general authorities, especially including members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, donate all their assets to the Church; they live the law of consecration. This includes all income from authoring books and any honoraria they might be given. I’ve been to a few of their homes–I assure you they do not live as if they are earning $500,000 per year as you suggest. With few exceptions, they live in modest, middle class homes. You really ought to do a better job of due diligence before making such outrageous claims.
So many are sharing their testimony of the church and defending the institution. So here’s my testimony to add here. I know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true. And I know that the Book of Mormon is true, with all my heart. But I do NOT know that the “church” is true. I do not believe in the idea of infallible authority. Joseph Smith and many other prophets outwardly condemned such a notion. And I try not to put my “trust in man” or “the arm of flesh” as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Now regarding the subject in this post, I highly recommend that all of you who are truly searching for truth, read the following articles:
(by the way, these are not “anti-mormon” articles, they are from individuals who simply seem to be searching for truth, as I am)
http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/18th-of-an-inch/
http://www.puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/01/city-creek-how-did-we-come-to-this.html
http://truthmarche.wordpress.com
I know that some of you defenders of the institution will not look up and read the articles above, with an open mind, but instead simply pass them off as anti propoganda. Let me just say this. That eerily reminds me of the fellow I met on my mission many years ago. He told me all about my “anti-christ” and “devil worshipping” Book of Mormon. I simply asked him, “Sir, have you read the Book of Mormon?” His response, “No, I don’t need to read that book to know what’s in it”. Sad.
I pray you all will be more wise. That you will turn to the Lord and listen to the spirit and TRULY search that amazing book you all bear testimony of (Book of Mormon). I don’t know of any better witness of Jesus Christ. And I also don’t know of any better witness to the dangers of temporal inequality, pride, and priestcraft. Many of the prophets in that book saw our day. They were speaking to us. Who do you think they knew would be reading their words in our day, more than anyone else? Us, the members of the church. Read what Moroni said to us in Mormon 8:33-41. While you are at it, read Nephi’s words in 2 Nephi 26:29-31 and 2 Nephi 28:8-21. Or if that isn’t enough for you, read the words of Jesus Christ himself in 3 Nephi 16. When you truly study that chapter, along with chapters 20 and 21 of 3 Nephi, through the spirit, you will realize the condemnation we are under, right along with the rest of babylon. To understand who the “gentiles” are in this chapter, please carefully read verse 7 in chapter 16. Christ is talking about the restoration of the gospel in these latter days.
Please open your eyes and see. Please turn to Jesus Christ, the only one we should be defending and worshipping. In the words of Jacob, “O be wise; what can I say more?”
the church takes tidings 10 % i have been to these church’s and watched every male in church bring in envelopes of money to the bishopric most if not all the ppl in the church are not struggling they claim like 15 million members and so lets do some math lest figure the average income of these family’s is 50,000 dollars the give 10 % is 500 a month from lets say 5million members that is 250,000,000 million a month or 30,000,000,000 billion dollars a year so understand this is ruff math but it is alot in ten years that is 300 billion dollars
i know i did some of my math wrong but its is prtty close like 500 a month is not 10% of a 50000 dollar a year income but its close and i was doning this off the top of my head really fast and just work 12 hrs so forgive me but you get what i am saying it colud be more then what i stated they take in or a lil less but it is a lot of freaking money
Another problem with your math that I thought about the other day. You are saying that the average family makes $50,000 and then you go on to calculate as if there are 5million families instead of members. Mormon families are big so It would be WAY less because there are probably 1-2million active families. So again my point stands that it probably barely hits the billion dollar mark a year. (from tithing that is)
True the Church has a lot of money. There are a ton of other factors as well that would put total tithing income more likely at about 1/3rd what you say it is. Still a lot of money but not THAT much.
Have to have my ex-mormon say- Ever since i was 6 i remeber being told things that would raise an eyebrow . Took me 40 years to really get the courage to admit to myself that there are so many dodgy things about the lds teachings and stories that i have to face the facts. FACTs- Dodgey -secretive -manipulative -outright lies -AINT a church of god. Thankfully my non member father taught me how to think – not what to think and not give it all up to some sneaky prophet who did many crazy things in the name of god facts are facts -no overlooking it no matter how hard it is …a CULT it is and thats another fact -sorry but you will react in your mind to what i say with the indoctrinated blurb i was given – dont question the church or its prophets etc etc..get real people and research the facts -this is just another cover up like all the other american crap that is covered up-If that cant convince you then answer this – WHAT if the profit is the Prophet now -maybe the decvil made him hide stuff like the devil does -according to bom teachings. I still love all my brainwashed member family and wouldnt talk as bluntly as this to them . What are they hiding this time? Research= SEEK and YE SHALL find – funny- i found the truth and it aint in the bom
I have to go along with what Joeseph Smith said “I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself.” I agree with you that there are many questionable antics that played out in the church. Especially the early days. I don’t go along with what the church teaches because of what they taught me. I go along with what the church teaches because what they teach has brought me very real experiences with God and taught me how to connect and commune with Him. I realize this is hard for others to believe, the number of very sacred experiences that I have had fulfilling church callings, giving blessings, attending the temple, and very real answers to prayers are what keep me involved in the church. I was never forced to go to church, my family was split growing up and I always had the choice. I noticed early on that those who were in the church living the gospel were happier than those who weren’t. I continue to see this a common thread today. Weather or not you believe in Joseph Smith the teaching that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will bring you happiness. Because they are all focused on Jesus Christ and God.
folks, follow the spirit; and the rest is crap. and for all the CULT folks, here’s a song for you, grab a banjo and enjoy.. ‘born again, saved from sin. never gonna have to work again, beat my wife and kick my dog’. was a chart topper in the san bernardino spanish mission ’01-’03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po