Missionaries living with members

[_Yoda]

I promise if I were ever the mission president I would never be living in a mansion while the elders serving under me were living in a hole. I would be out tracting regularly if I expected the elders to do it. I wouldn't be drinking black soda pop if I asked the elders to give it up. Lastly if for whatever reason I didn't, I surely would not preach that I would be the most exalted among them in the afterlife or even that I would be their equal. Those who suffered most have the most to gain in the next life and those that deny this are the true "testimony destroyers" in my opinon.

My in-laws just returned from serving as Mission Presidents in Texas. The home they lived in could hardly be termed as a mansion. It was a modest home (4 bedrooms, 2 1/2 baths). It was large enough to house new missionaries coming out into the field. Also, my mother in law worked her tail off cooking. She cooked for function after function. She just had to have a knee replacement, and I think part of what contributed to it was the amount of time the woman spent on her feet. Yes, she had some hired help, but she damned well needed it with as much crap as she had going on.

The mission presidents get a living stipend, a house to live in, a car, and are covered under Church insurance. I don't think any of this is unreasonable for the amount of work that they do.

[_beastie]

First, as to whether or not it's a myth that no LDS "clergy" are paid - this may be well known among life long members, but it is a bit of a shock to converts like me, because the fact that NO LDS clergy are paid was a big point in the missionary lessons. In fact, it was presented as one of the ways to differentiate the "true church" from apostate ones. The "true church" didn't have people working for filthy lucre, or some such thing. At least, this is how it was presented to me when I joined in 76, and it was what we told people as missionaries in France in 80. So while it may not be a big deal for GAs to be paid a living salary (and I don't think it is a big deal, in fact, I think a paid clergy is a good thing, because otherwise you have people who functionally have TWO jobs - their paying job and at least the equivalent of a part time unpaid job at church, and they have NO time for their families, plus a paid, professional clergy gives you more opportunity to "quality control".) - the big deal is that the missionary lessons make a big deal about having an unpaid clergy. Maybe that has been updated now, I don't know.

Second, I don't think they're hiding their salaries so much as hiding the fact that the church is very much like a business and invests large sums of money in money-making, profitable activities, like any other business. I think what people may have an issue with is not that GAs are paid a living salary, but that they are making serious life sacrifices to pay tithing and the bulk of that tithing goes into business, money making activities that make HUGE amounts of profit but doesn't have a perceivable benefit to members. The church makes huge amounts of money each year, and members are STILL asked to finance much of the running of the church locally - at least this is how it used to be. If a locality needs a new ward building, the members have to work to raise money for it. Maybe SLC kicks in a certain amount, but, at least when I was a member, local members were expected to kick in quite a bit.

I know that this has the potential to bother the devout, because it bothered my devout parents a great deal when the church built some fancy-pants hotel in SLC. They did a spread on it in an Ensign or something, and it was the height of luxury. That was one of the rare times I've heard my parents criticize the leaders.

Also, If I recall correctly, the books were closed during a period when the church was really struggling financially, almost bankrupt. I think that was the turning point for how the church was run financially, and it became more of a profit making business.

So while I don't think the church is hiding anything other than the fact that it's a profitable business, it does bother me that members are encouraged to have complete, blind trust in the finances. I think that feeds into the (MAD denied) tendency to think the leaders are infallible.

At least GAs don't have cushie seats on SLC businesses any more and make money doing nothing.

[_harmony]

I have never heard such a thing and we ger a GA once a year. Maybe they were referring to the 12 not the 70.

For Stake Conference last October we had a GA via satellite. We were told that the GA's would no longer be visiting stakes. If you're still getting visits, I guess you know what that means to me.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason what about mission presidents? How many of them are their?

Good point

I do not know how MPs are paid. Rumor has it that if they can support themselves, they do, but if not the Church cover expenses. But the ones I have seem live pretty modestly while and MP. And for many, taknig three years off is tough. Some may still be working and not retired. Were I to leave my career for three years now or even in the next 10 years it would be very hard.

Secondly, can't the top level GAs just write books and make a killing anyway? Why do they even need a Church salary?

Not all GAs write and not all books sale. I knew and LDS publisher who said selling 3000-5000 copies of anyone LDS book is about average.

And missionaries are hard working salesman, maybe they should be paid as well. Sales people are usually paid well in corporate America since we're using that as our model of what things should be like. I just hate corporate America and what I call the new age feudalism that we live in. The attitude that it's ok to mistreat and abuse people because they're at entry level sickens me. I don't think God sees it this way. It's not just the salary. It's whose mistakes are focused on, it's the ethics as they see it on quitting a job or getting fired.

Ok. So you don't just hhave an issue with the Church but the economics of pay in the free market?

Maybe you're higher up the totem pole Jason so I can see where you might not be bothered by it. The fact that the Church uses it as a model to how its organized leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I had always expected a better system than corporate America out of the one true Church. It simply doesn't look very fair to me, and if you can't find fairness in your religion, that's a very discomforting feeling to say the least.

I am an owner of the company that I work for btu it has not always been so. Took a long time to get here and on the way people making more then me did not bother me. Howver, you should now that the highest paid person on our company makes no more the 4.8 times the entry level person.

[_Jason Bourne]

First, as to whether or not it's a myth that no LDS "clergy" are paid - this may be well known among life long members, but it is a bit of a shock to converts like me, because the fact that NO LDS clergy are paid was a big point in the missionary lessons. In fact, it was presented as one of the ways to differentiate the "true church" from apostate ones.

I am sorry to question this but I am quite familiar with the LDS missionary discussions from 1979-today and I do not think this was ever a topic that was outlined in them. Perhaps your missionaries emphasized this on their own.

The "true church" didn't have people working for filthy lucre, or some such thing. At least, this is how it was presented to me when I joined in 76,

I see you were pre 1979 but I think the lessons in 1979 were the same as 1976. Could be wrong.

Second, I don't think they're hiding their salaries so much as hiding the fact that the church is very much like a business and invests large sums of money in money-making, profitable activities, like any other business. I think what people may have an issue with is not that GAs are paid a living salary, but that they are making serious life sacrifices to pay tithing and the bulk of that tithing goes into business, money making activities that make HUGE amounts of profit but doesn't have a perceivable benefit to members. The church makes huge amounts of money each year, and members are STILL asked to finance much of the running of the church locally - at least this is how it used to be. If a locality needs a new ward building, the members have to work to raise money for it. Maybe SLC kicks in a certain amount, but, at least when I was a member, local members were expected to kick in quite a bit.

This has changed. It is all financed through tithing. There is no longer a local budget assessment and there is no longer a local building fund when buildings are built. It has been this way since the early 1990's.

Also, If I recall correctly, the books were closed during a period when the church was really struggling financially, almost bankrupt. I think that was the turning point for how the church was run financially, and it became more of a profit making business.

The books were closed in the late 50's early 60's when there were annual deficit spending due to an overly ambitious building program but the church was no where near bankruptcy.

So while I don't think the church is hiding anything other than the fact that it's a profitable business, it does bother me that members are encouraged to have complete, blind trust in the finances. I think that feeds into the (MAD denied) tendency to think the leaders are infallible.

I am all for open financial disclosure.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have never heard such a thing and we ger a GA once a year. Maybe they were referring to the 12 not the 70.

For Stake Conference last October we had a GA via satellite. We were told that the GA's would no longer be visiting stakes. If you're still getting visits, I guess you know what that means to me.

We have had the satellite deal to but also visits from GAs. Sorry.

[_harmony]

I have never heard such a thing and we ger a GA once a year. Maybe they were referring to the 12 not the 70.

For Stake Conference last October we had a GA via satellite. We were told that the GA's would no longer be visiting stakes. If you're still getting visits, I guess you know what that means to me.

We have had the satellite deal to but also visits from GAs. Sorry.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. Last year, we had no visit other than by satellite. This year so far, we've had no visit. We'll see what happens in October.

[_ajax18]

I am an owner of the company that I work for btu it has not always been so. Took a long time to get here and on the way people making more then me did not bother me. Howver, you should now that the highest paid person on our company makes no more the 4.8 times the entry level person.

I must say that's much more commendable than any ratio I've ever heard of. I understand that the one who risks, builds, and puts his life into a business is entitled to something more than just an employee but I think a lot of upperclass people go way to far and not just with salary but just basic humane treatment of employees. I would have been more impressed were the GAs living on 50k a year from the Church rather than $100. This is what I was originally told. We new they got enough money to live on and we couldn't see how anyone could pay their bills by themselves on under 40k a year.

The next questions would be, "Where is all the money going then?" What are all these expenses that they have cause I'm not seeing it. I don't have a problem with the Church investing money. It sounds better than leaving it in a bank. Pres. Hinckley said that the work would not go on for more than a few years without tithing. It just seems like they take in way more than they send out.

Lastly if it really is, low six figures and MPs live frugally as Liz said, what are they hiding?