Corrupt General Authorities and Their Huge Salaries

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't even want to get started on this thread lest I start to choke on my own vomit.

Ressentiment, from what I've seen of you on line over the years, is one of your besetting passions. I believe it's a major factor in bringing you to where you currently are.

It would indeed be best if you stayed out of this thread for that reason. Anyway, this thread -- I speak with some authority on the subject -- was not launched in order to provide a venue for class warfare or proletarian outrage. It was launched to deny the charge that the Brethren glut themselves on the labor of the people.

[Mighty Curelom]

I can go with that...now, first, I'm not sure their comp approaches $170K, but let's assume it does, that's $14,167/mo - take out 30% for taxes ($4,250; I'm being generous here), 10% for tithing ($1,417) - and you're left with $8,500. I'm going to assume that they have no house payment or car payment (again being generous). That leaves just over $102,000 per year to live on; not bad, but certainly not lavish (by any means). Now, each of these men has more than one child (granted they're all grown) and may provide some support from time to time to them. Take out monthly expenses for normal meals and life, etc. What you have left is nothing compared to executives of companies of comparable size...not even close.

Ah, the world of Mormon apologetics--where the wealthiest 5% of the richest nation on the planet are barely able to make ends meet.

[WalkerW]

Ah, the world of Mormon apologetics--where the wealthiest 5% of the richest nation on the planet are barely able to make ends meet.

Ah, the world of most Mormon critics--where they can't respond to what is actually said and instead make up a straw man that is much easier to poke fun at or tackle.

[Brant Gardner]

Relatively modest, I would say. Many of the homes in my own neighborhood are much larger.

Well, duh. Of course we know the fortune you make from apologetics!

[Paul Osborne]

Ressentiment, from what I've seen of you on line over the years, is one of your besetting passions. I believe it's a major factor in bringing you to where you currently are.

It would indeed be best if you stayed out of this thread for that reason. Anyway, this thread -- I speak with some authority on the subject -- was not launched in order to provide a venue for class warfare or proletarian outrage. It was launched to deny the charge that the Brethren glut themselves on the labor of the people

You're probably right. I should be on my way and keep my big mouth shut. It's my worst fault.

See you later.

Paul O

[John Larsen]

Most of the GA's I have met have been quite successful in business or professions etc, and are retired.

Who says they need any additional salary at all? I am related to a GA emeritus, and I know he was very successful before he was ever called.

Would it upset you to find that wealthy GAs are still drawing a salary even though they don't "need" it.

[John Larsen]

Ah, the world of most Mormon critics--where they can't respond to what is actually said and instead make up a straw man that is much easier to poke fun at or tackle.

You mean like in the OP?

[ttribe]

Ah, the world of Mormon apologetics--where the wealthiest 5% of the richest nation on the planet are barely able to make ends meet.

You're out of your mind if you think that's what I was saying.

[Somebodyz]

It's always the ex Mormons and the Non Mormons who are most concerned where OUR money is being spent. Why is that?

[O-Brother]

Oh but you're mistaken. The power of a blue collar working man is mightier than all the earth

Some thoughts.

Take Joseph Smith and Brigham Young for example. Neither one had higher education. Jesus, the same.

Even though I am not a blue collar worker, I don't like the term. Some of us do office and brain work while others do brain and physical work. Both are honorable. Work is work, true? Some types of work pay more, others pay less. It's been like this for a long time. The only work that didn't pay well was slavery but at least employment was steady.

Keep in mind that the majority of the members who built the Salt Lake Temple weren't office workers.

In theory, you could be a blue collar worker and be called by the Savior to manage part of his Church. Maybe even the entire Church. In practice, that doesn't happen in this country. The system is set up like a business and, at the higher levels, the selection process seems to be based on the following factors:

1. Worthiness and quality of service rendered over the years

2. Your resume (Degrees, accomplishments, etc.)

3. Reputation among saints and your background. (Contrarians, critics, doubters and controversial people won't be called)

4. Your background (no pending lawsuits, no questionable past that can be brought to the surface by critics)

5. Married. (Stability. Can't have someone marrying and divorcing all the time)

6. Financial stability, faithful and consistent tithe payer

7. Ability to lead, speak in public and represent the Church and its general policies and procedures

8. Highest degree of honesty. This has to be maintained throughout the calling

9. Gospel knowledge and ability to give Church talks that uplift and not divide the membership body

10.Mental and intellectual stability and consistency.Can't be rational one day and irrational the next

11.Priesthood Leadership qualities

12.Education. A 4-year degree, Master's or Ph.D.

13.Successful laywers, doctors, scientists, business owners of good reputation and corporate executives, professors and educators preferred

14. Maturity and ability to travel

The above seems to go in line with the fifteen and most of the seventies.

Why would the Lord need all of the above to run His Church? Possibilities:

1. The Glory of God Is Intelligence so there is a focus on brain power, light and truth.

2. Experience and proven leadership necessary to interact with the world

3. It's a hierarchical system that may resemble heavenly systems, Jesus being the Head and the greatest of all

4. The structure is supported by membership vote, financial contributions and both spiritual and selfless support (time,callings, tasks, etc.)

5. It's lead-and-follow system. You lead and/or follow. Fence sitters and rebels have a hard fitting in.

Corporations use a very similar system. The Catholic Church uses a similar system and, guess what? The government uses a similar system.

Referring to the Temple, the Lord said that His House is a house of order. I suppose that His Church must have a solid, well-engineered structure in order to grow and progress in a corporate run world. It's a system that's been proven to work.

Although all of this looks very corporation like, "the first shall be last and the last shall be first," so power, positions, top leadership positions, etc. require much more. When much is given, much is required. When the fruits fall off the tree, it's the wind blowing. But when the tree itself is uprooted, it's a tragedy. We have more fruits and leaves falling off the tree than the tree itself suffering serious damage. In the end, it's all about who's been the most faithful servant in the capacity that the Lord assigned to him or her.

In other words, in Heaven, there will be blue collar workers (ugly term) and righteous corporate archetypes. Also lots of humble, faithful and uneducated people, the poor in spirit and the meek. There might be many lines at the Judgment Day with signs in Adamic language:

"Lip service worshipers, enter here." Another, "Meek Only" and yet another "Poor In Spirit." "Self-Righteous, - please self-serve and enter this line. Watch your step."

Etc.

[Somebodyz]

Some thoughts.

Take Joseph Smith and Brigham Young for example. Neither one had higher education. Jesus, the same.

Taught by angels, is a higher education.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, duh. Of course we know the fortune you make from apologetics!

[Nofear]

Would it upset you to find that wealthy GAs are still drawing a salary even though they don't "need" it.

Considering that the General Authority's stipends are not paid from tithing but from the income generated by the private tax-paying businesses of the Church this would not be bothersome to me at all (if true - which has not been established). The fact remains that the General Authorities do not glut themselves on the monies offered up by the membership of the Church. Unless you can challenge that fact, why such a silly question?

[Duncan]

Would it upset you to find that wealthy GAs are still drawing a salary even though they don't "need" it.

I can think of an emeritus General Authority who is in a rest home and was called at a very,very early age and so as far as I know didn't have much of a career and I hope the Church is paying his bills! I think if we would be true to this gain is godliness equalling General Authority-ness then Pres. Monson would have a Ph.D. and be a billionaire, but he isn't. There are LDS members who make far more then money then Pres. Monson or Elder Nelson or whoever and may be more educated or better educated. Why aren't Stephen Covey, Jon Huntsman, the Mormon who started Husky Oil, Mitt Romney all General Authorities? All are educated and makes the moolah far, far more then Pres. Packer or Michael J. Teh ever did. Heck in our ward our clerk has a PH.D. in Physiology and the bishop has a masters degree and the two counsellors don't have any degrees but the one counsellor makes far more money then the clerk and the bishop combined. Why don't we let the Lord decide who he wants to serve the Church in whatever capacity?

[O-Brother]

Taught by angels, is a higher education.

Yep. That was my point. This applies to all, I think.

"When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish

[Blah]

Not cheap, but I don't think it costs billions per year to maintain/build new ones.

I work in the Houston Temple. I happen to have a very good idea of how much it costs to maintain that building. Suffice it to say it averages out to several thousand dollars each and every day. And it's a relatively small temple. I'm sure the Salt Lake Temple or Los Angeles Temple cost many times more. 120+ temples of various sizes with all manner of routine maintenance and operating expenses, plus thousands of meetinghouses and stake centers, visitors' centers, welfare facilities, mission homes, etc.

And then there's non-routine and emergency repairs, such as the broken windows in the Houston Temple that needed to be replaced after Hurricane Ike last year.

Oh, and the cost of building new meetinghouses and temples.

Even if we ignore all the money involved in the Church's humanitarian efforts (which is considerable), and the money it spends on producing and distributing printed materials for missionary work and for wards and branches, etc... If we consider just the money that goes into building and maintaining the Church's physical facilities, I'm not sure a billion a year is a terribly unreasonable estimate.

[O-Brother]

I can think of an emeritus General Authority who is in a rest home and was called at a very,very early age and so as far as I know didn't have much of a career and I hope the Church is paying his bills! I think if we would be true to this gain is godliness equalling General Authority-ness then Pres. Monson would have a Ph.D. and be a billionaire, but he isn't. There are LDS members who make far more then money then Pres. Monson or Elder Nelson or whoever and may be more educated or better educated. Why aren't Stephen Covey, Jon Huntsman, the Mormon who started Husky Oil, Mitt Romney all General Authorities? All are educated and makes the moolah far, far more then Pres. Packer or Michael J. Teh ever did. Heck in our ward our clerk has a PH.D. in Physiology and the bishop has a masters degree and the two counsellors don't have any degrees but the one counsellor makes far more money then the clerk and the bishop combined. Why don't we let the Lord decide who he wants to serve the Church in whatever capacity?

None of the men above can be considered blue collar workers, though. I think that was the point the other poster was trying to make. The Church has an abundance of degreed people to choose from when it's time to pull them out of wards. Many wealthy people have become mission presidents or served in missionary capacities, bishopric, stake presidencies and regional representative capacities. You can't put everyone to lead the Church in top positions because positions are limited and GAs tend to live very long lives. In due time, all qualified people move up in the system, on a need and orderly basis. I think the Lord is already in charge of the callings. Nobody is questioning His choices, only commenting on the patterns. As for Mitt, he has potential, maybe he will become a top leader when he's older and out of politics. I don't think politicians are high priority in Church callings. Remember the number of people that had issues with ETB over his views.

[ttribe]

I can think of an emeritus General Authority who is in a rest home and was called at a very,very early age and so as far as I know didn't have much of a career and I hope the Church is paying his bills! I think if we would be true to this gain is godliness equalling General Authority-ness then Pres. Monson would have a Ph.D. and be a billionaire, but he isn't. There are LDS members who make far more then money then Pres. Monson or Elder Nelson or whoever and may be more educated or better educated. Why aren't Stephen Covey, Jon Huntsman, the Mormon who started Husky Oil, Mitt Romney all General Authorities? All are educated and makes the moolah far, far more then Pres. Packer or Michael J. Teh ever did. Heck in our ward our clerk has a PH.D. in Physiology and the bishop has a masters degree and the two counsellors don't have any degrees but the one counsellor makes far more money then the clerk and the bishop combined. Why don't we let the Lord decide who he wants to serve the Church in whatever capacity?

Amen.

[Jaybear]

The fact remains that the General Authorities do not glut themselves on the monies offered up by the membership of the Church. Unless you can challenge that fact, why such a silly question?

One can neither challenge "that fact" nor defend the assertion of the fact, as the financial records for your Church are not a matter of public disclosure.

If you wish to tithe money to the LDS Church, not knowing how the money is spent, or how much upper management is compensated, hey its your money. But don't be surprised that in the absence of full disclosure some people will assume the worst, just as some people will assume that they don't receive a salary, just a modest living "stipend." Likely people on both extremes are wrong.

Personally, I assume that its not the salary that draws LDS men to become GAs, but the power, influence and social benefits that flow from the position.

[Nofear]

One can neither challenge "that fact" nor defend the assertion of the fact, as the financial records for your Church are not a matter of public disclosure.

Incorrect. The Church has publicly disclosed the source of the stipends. The amounts may be discrete, but the source is known.

[ttribe]

One can neither challenge "that fact" nor defend the assertion of the fact, as the financial records for your Church are not a matter of public disclosure.

If you wish to tithe money to the LDS Church, not knowing how the money is spent, or how much upper management is compensated, hey its your money. But don't be surprised that in the absence of full disclosure some people will assume the worst, just as some people will assume that they don't receive a salary, just a modest living "stipend." Likely people on both extremes are wrong.

Never mind the audit reports...the internal controls...the lack of substantive evidence of financial abuse.

Personally, I assume that its not the salary that draws LDS men to become GAs, but the power, influence and social benefits that flow from the position.

As if they applied for the jobs.

[O-Brother]

One can neither challenge "that fact" nor defend the assertion of the fact, as the financial records for your Church are not a matter of public disclosure.

If you wish to tithe money to the LDS Church, not knowing how the money is spent, or how much upper management is compensated, hey its your money. But don't be surprised that in the absence of full disclosure some people will assume the worst, just as some people will assume that they don't receive a salary, just a modest living "stipend." Likely people on both extremes are wrong.

Personally, I assume that its not the salary that draws LDS men to become GAs, but the power, influence and social benefits that flow from the position.

There are no facts. Modest living stipends aren't classified. Nobody but Church accountants know who makes what and I don't think the non-disclosure policy will change anytime soon. The system is set up to offer some form of monetary compensation. How much is up to whom is in charge and only subject of speculation for those of us who aren't. What they make doesn't affect me one way or another.

[ERayR]

A individuals' business expenses are not considered part of their compensation. As for references please seem my OP on this thread.

Edit: You may recall a year or two back I did a quick analysis of the 2005 UK financial statements the church. In that it were the details on the highly compensated individuals that fell under LDS UK.

Phaedrus

This is not exactly accurate. The accurate answer would be it depends. It would depend on whether the business expenses are 1) paid by the business, 2) paid by the individual and reimbursed, 3) paid by the individual and not reimbursed.

[lingo]

Considering that the General Authority's stipends are not paid from tithing but from the income generated by the private tax-paying businesses of the Church this would not be bothersome to me at all (if true - which has not been established). The fact remains that the General Authorities do not glut themselves on the monies offered up by the membership of the Church. Unless you can challenge that fact, why such a silly question?

Did these businesses just appear? How did the church acquire these businesses? As my business grows larger, I too say, I did not use any of my personal money to acquire this or that. This was not always the case though. In order to start the business, I used my own funds just as I believe the church used tithing funds early on to acquire many of their assets. An analogy of the complete separation of the tithing from taxed businesses would be if I stole a large sum of money and opened a legitimate business. As the business grew and money came back in, I could say my wealth comes from a legitimate business that pays taxes.

[gmormon]

Never mind the audit reports...the internal controls...the lack of substantive evidence of financial abuse.

As if they applied for the jobs.

You didn't fill out your GA Application Form during your last Temple Interview ? Shame on you !