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
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
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 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.”
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.
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 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:
http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/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 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?
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.