All Activity

Thanks for this. I wonder what the word "uniform" means? Does it mean the same amount, or for the same specific expenses, which could vary widely across the world? In my mind, uniform might mean a list of things for which they are paid: mortgage payment, rent, utilities, repairs, and ongoing maintenance. Or it could mean $10,000 a month for everyone. In that case, the general authority would have to prove with documents that they spent the money on its intended use (housing expenses) and nothing else. Travel expenses, could not come out of that, for example. They could deduct travel expenses for their ministry but not out of housing allowance. If the Church pays their travel expense (on a church credit card, for example), they would have to follow Church travel policy for travel expenses, whatever that might be. It might be $80 per night maximum or $100 per day for meals. Or only fly coach, or, or, or. I once worked for the Marriott corporation. They had fairly strict travel expense rules. I know that has nothing to do with the Church. So, if a GA has his house paid off, he would not be allowed to have a housing allowance that included any mortgage or rent purposes. I don't know if general authorities collect social security, but they would have to pay into that as does everyone. I don't think age matters, but I really don't know. Furthermore, I am no longer receiving any funds from a ministry allowance. Oh, and as an aside, I remember flying home from a conference in Boise (love the Bacon Restaurant in downtown Boise). I was in line, and two general authorities got in line behind me for the same flight. One, I believe, was Elder Cornish of the First Seventy. So I can testify that general authorities fly Southwest!! I would also suggest that a "living allowance" that doesn't follow the IRS rules for clergypersons, is a salary and taxable income, any way you slice it.

Video from the shooting scene. No blood or anything gory , just chaos. don’t know if fb links work. https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DH5KeWuqu/?mibextid=wwXIfr

That's hard. Would it be appropriate to tell them that you trust them to be safe in the women's restroom but cannot predict how others will respond to them? Then the decision would be theirs. Not sure if that would work or not in a liability situation though. Are there laws in your state that dictate what restroom a person must use?

This is what it says on the church's website concerning General Authorities, for anyone interested: General Authorities leave their careers when they are called into full time Church service. When they do so, they are given a living allowance which enables them to focus all of their time on serving in the Church. This practice allows for far more church members on a worldwide basis to be considered for a calling to serve as a General Authority, rather than limiting considerations to only those who may be financially independent. The living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities. None of the funds for this living allowance come from the tithing of Church members, but instead from proceeds of the Church's financial investments.

No bishops receive any money or allowances (housing or otherwise). Same for stake presidents and all local leadership. It doesn't exist for anyone in those callings, no matter their circumstances because they are not expected to leave their jobs to fulfill their callings (and also, it wouldn't work very well since most will only serve in these callings for 5-10 years and then will be released through no decision of their own). Too often latter-day saints have had a snooty attitude about "paid clergy" but if someone is doing it as a full time job then it just makes sense. It's good for members to know that even though the vast majority of our clergy is unpaid, we also have paid clergy and so we can get off of our high horses about it.

tell us how to address it if the security and policing isn’t directed at who is murdering people. I suppose everyone else but the Tongans should get the additional security and police attention as we wouldn’t want them to get offended … or you for that matter. This is a Tongan-specific gang issue where the participants happen to be Mormon as well. Enforcement should be focused on the problem, not what makes you feel good. This should be interesting to watch how the church handles this. I predict they will do nothing and this will continue in some form…and that would be racism to not protect them and root out the troublemakers. Maybe there are a certain amount of casualties among the Tongan members the church leadership will be ok with.

Curious- how you would advise: A client in therapy who has never dressed trans in public shows up one day in session dressed trans. Dress, heels, wig, but has facial hair. Asks which restroom to use. You trust this client to be safe for others but cannot predict how safe the client will be in either situation. What do you recommend? I’m dealing with that this week.

Not a lie. The word lie suggests hiding. Context matters. That said, let’s be honest, splitting hairs to differentiate between a living wage and payment for services at the rate of 100k? I mean, arent most of us working and collecting basically enough for a living wage, and many just under 100? who cares what we label it. GAs get money. It’s their money to accept or reject. We are talking church policy here.

Well, I may be the only person on this forum who has actually pastored and who has received a housing allowance and/or parsonage for my ministry. What the LDS do is what virtually all denominations or churches do regarding clergy compensation. It is a bit complex, but not overly complicated. One must distinguish between income tax and self-employment tax (for social security purposes). This IRS rule is for ordained ministers regardless of faith affiliation. A church or denomination may provide a church-owned parsonage for their minister. The church may pay utilities and grass cutting, and even furnish the house. The value of this each year must be claimed by the minister for social security tax purposes. There are three formulas for calculating the amount of this "housing allowance." In the absence of a parsonage, the church may declare in advance (key concept) how much of a pastor's compensation is paid in housing allowance and how much in salary, if any. The salary is fully taxed for social security and for income tax. The amount of housing allowance is only taxed for social security. Some pastors don't pay into social security and usually (those who I know) have regretted that upon retirement. I spent some time as the director of a church owned retirement center. I was ordained in that church. I often spoke in chapel services and did counseling with the residents. The IRS will decide on an individual basis of the role of the minister meets that intended by the law. Ditto for an ordained professor teaching in a church university. The value of the housing allowance may not and should not exceed the actual cost of the housing, including everything from repairs, lawn maintenance, utilities, etc. It also may not exceed the amount designated “in advance” by the church or religious organization. I have no knowledge if an LDS bishop as an ordained minister is paid a housing allowance by the LDS or not. I have never been a bishop. It also could be up to the individual bishop whether to go that route, just as it is for any other minister of any other church. In addition, the minister can deduct his expenses in his ministry, just like any business or self-employed person can. It is not honest for any minister of any church to claim they have no income for their service if they accept any form of housing allowance. It also is not correct to simply say that housing allowance is not taxed. The only way it is not taxed is if the minister does not pay into social security, which is a possibility. I hope this helps. I once pastored in northern New Jersey; I lived in a church owned parsonage. I never could have afforded to rent or buy a house there. It was a blessing to have a nice (not fancy—but nice) home in which to live. When I moved on of course, I lost that benefit. Take care all.

Yes. Your racism is very sad.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/08/17/1-dead-2-critically-injured-in-kearns-funeral-shooting/ https://www.fox13now.com/news/crime/police-investigate-possible-gang-connection-in-deadly-shooting-outside-church-funeral-in-kearns Interesting that the police were contacted before the shooting and they were there and heard the shots.

Another murder at a funeral in Utah today. What is the deal with the Tongan’s? Does the church need to provide armed security at meetinghouses where Tongans attend? Since January this is homicide number two at an lds funeral. sad

Different mission presidents I bet or whoever makes the decision.

I don’t care as long as they behave themselves. How would I even know to care if they pass as a woman?

Just like is and isn’t porn.

Okay. Okay. Seems like the negation of sex-segregated spaces, since what counts as "passing" and what does not is almost certainly unworkable. What about just a regular guy, not a man dressed and "passing" as a woman, but a straight-up man? Don't see how to exclude them. Thanks, -Smac

I completely agree. I don’t myself. That’s why I see an issue with the edge cases where someone can visually pass as the other sex. I would prefer to have a passing trans woman use the restroom I am in rather than a passing trans man. If that ever happens to me, I will be mildly freaked. Added: that freak will include significant vicarious anxiety and discomfort I assume the other will be feeling as most likely they really, really don’t want to be there.

Given you and others don’t view trans women as women or trans men as men, if I leave off trans or biological, I mean biological. I try to speak the language of those I am speaking with using words as they do unless I specify I don’t.

If you read the talk, he is definitely talking generally imo. He is talking to the audience as one community of which he is part.

We're at a pretty pass when I have to ask you to clarify what you mean by "men" and "women." I think many women and girls do not want men in women's bathrooms. I think plenty of men feel the same about women in men's bathrooms, but less due to safety concerns and more due to privacy/dignity concerns. Okay. Glad we cleared that up. Thanks, -Smac

I agree. I think one could point out the difference by looking at someone when their health gets to the point they can no longer serve. Do they get severance pay or does the allowance continue? If no cut in pay for less or no service, it’s not a salary imo.

It was just strange to me you referenced solely the men who would feel awkward and not the women. I was trying to figure out what you were talking about….I assumed you yourself were referring to trans women, the edge cases in your view who do not visually look like they should be in a woman’s bathroom and was wondering if you saw something different between the cases. I didn’t mean you to repeat everything, didn’t mean to make you work, could have just said something along the lines of left out the biological women, but they are included, of course, in the same line of reasoning.

I absolutely believe it is continual. God is the source of being and creates our being, just as the Son is begotten from the Father continually. He is not the clock maker of the deists.

"Background" about abortion? How does that relate to sex-segregated bathrooms? Yes. We should expect to see varying constitutional analyses in the state appellate courts. I'm not sure why you are bringing up abortion or the "religious right's" efforts pertaining to it. Could you clarify how this is relevant to sex-segregated bathrooms? "This" being sex-segregated bathrooms? Oddly, the Kansas legislature has apparently attempt to enact a statute setting the level of constitutional analysis is set by statute: I haven't looked into this, and I have no experience with Kansas jurisprudence, but it seems almost axiomatic that under basic separation-of-powers principles, the judiciary, not the legislature, determines what standard of review the state constitution requires and whether a particular law satisfies it. A statute can supply definitions, substantive rules, and legislative findings, but it cannot dictate to the courts the applicable constitutional test or compel a finding that the test is met. That said, I think you "it's all political" approach to jurisprudential thought is not a reliable thing. Moreover, because the statute on its face differentiates based on sex, it necessarily requires strict scrutiny. There are three standards: (1) the rational basis standard, which requires only that the enactment bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state interest; (2) the heightened or intermediate scrutiny standard, which requires the enactment to substantially further an important state interest; and (3) the strict scrutiny standard, which requires the enactment serve some compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to further that interest. The determination of which of the three standards applies depends on the nature of the right at stake. The second on applies. Generally, under intermediate scrutiny, a law or government action must serve an important (or significant) government interest, and the means used to achieve that goal must be substantially related to the interest. The government holds the burden of proof to justify its action. I asked Grok to take a stab at guessing how things will turn out: We'll see. Interesting that you keep attempting to frame litigation in provocative, slanted terminology. Anyway, in March the court in Doe "denied a requested temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the law": More here: While certainly not definitive, that the plaintiffs' failure to establish a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the underlying claims (the article above references "successful likelihood," but that may be a typo) would not normally be encouraging to the plaintiffs. In cases such as this there really isn't a factual dispute, but rather the dispute pertains to constitutionality. If they could not demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing at the outset of the case, I'm not sure much will change in the future. Yes, we'll see. Sex-based separations in bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar facilities have long been treated as constitutionally permissible. Federal courts in recent years have generally upheld biological-sex rules in analogous settings (schools, prisons, etc.), and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 Skrmetti decision applied only rational-basis review to a related transgender regulation. Thanks, -Smac

Neither does the Catholic Church, as dogma can be, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, refined, understood better, and declared.