Church Employee Salary Info Leaked

[Calm]

From the above link, has a link to the source as well:

"Each temple also has one or more men known as “Recorders.” This is a paid full-time position in larger temples (there may also be more than one employee/recorder or there may be a volunteer assistant recorder(s)). The Temple Recorder has a number of specific responsibilities. The recorder functions by assisting the president of the temple in carefully overseeing the recording of all ordinances performed in the temple and assuring that those records are communicated to Church headquarters where they are archived. Most of this work is now digitized. The recorder also performs certain functions with the president related to the general preparation for the administration of the endowment. Additionally, the recorder may have specific assignments in directing other paid personnel that may or may not exist in a given temple: laundry service employees, grounds keepers or contractors, cafeteria employees, general food service matters, building maintenance, some secretarial staff, security. The presidency, matrons and ordinance workers are not paid staff and perform their duties gratis. However, in smaller temples, the recorder and building engineer are also counselors in the temple presidency and the temple itself is maintained on a volunteer basis (no paid employees – these smaller temples have no food service and do not provide rental ceremonial clothing"

Edited May 17, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

MFB also responded:

"

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

The salaried temple positions are interesting to look through (not surprising really though).

What does a temple recorder do different from what a temple president does?  Their pay is a pretty good income (considering it was 10 years ago).

Someone posted elsewhere that the temple president's pay was shown, but I don't see that (?).

Do temple presidents receive a salary, do you know?

I couldn't tell you exactly what the difference is between the recorder and the president (I know what the temple president does, but I don't know what the recorder does... they likely work hand in hand).  Obviously the president's position leans a bit more to the ecclesiastical/ministerial side.

Temple presidents do not receive a salary.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why doesn't the church just open its books and show how uneventful the finances really are?  That'll calm down the critics and put mormon leaks out of business.

It would be unlikely to shut down MormonLeaks as they are leaking much more than just financial info.

But, returning to the days when the church publicly shared its finances would make a lot of people happy.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why doesn't the church just open its books and show how uneventful the finances really are?  That'll calm down the critics and put mormon leaks out of business.

We've always been counseled not to give in to terrorists.  

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why doesn't the church just open its books and show how uneventful the finances really are?  That'll calm down the critics and put mormon leaks out of business.

Because if it was any amount of money the critics would still grouse. Paul was a tent maker. His critics constantly harped on it.

Edited May 17, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why doesn't the church just open its books and show how uneventful the finances really are?  That'll calm down the critics and put mormon leaks out of business.

Because if it was any amount of money the critics would still grouse. Paul was a tent maker. His critics constantly harped on it.

And they would micro-manage and complain as to how it is being spent and how it should be spent without knowing all the intricate details of the system. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

And they would micro-manage and complain as to how it is being spent and how it should be spent without knowing all the intricate details of the system. 

Critics will always be there and can always be ignored.  If the Church ever returns to the practice of disclosing its finances every year, it should be for the right reasons and certainly not to appease critics.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Because if it was any amount of money the critics would still grouse. Paul was a tent maker. His critics constantly harped on it.

I suspect not.  If it were leaked that GAs were given a stipend of $20,000 a year with all their travel expenses reimbursed, I doubt anyone would complain.

But having the Lord's church chart a course based on what the critics might or might not say is foolish.  They should do it simply because it is the right thing to do (like with the publication of the essays, which are the doctrinal and historical equivalent of the "financials".)

[busybee]

On 2017-5-16 at 7:52 PM, rockpond said:

For anyone out there who has been dying to know how much a temple employee makes <crickets>, some 2006 data is now available!

MormonLeaks has also created a page where they are compiling all leaks that have to do with church salaries, it's here:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=Mormon_Church_Salaries

If you were looking to become employed with the church, it appears that (as of 2006) the top salaries there maxed out around $130k.  Likely a bit higher now.

Here is some up to date info. My husband works for the church. His salary is £43000 per annum. It is market-related to other jobs at his level. Don't know what the big hoohaa is about when it comes to disclosing salaries.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Because if it was any amount of money the critics would still grouse. Paul was a tent maker. His critics constantly harped on it.

I'd agree with Cinepro.  And perhaps the main complaint as I've seen it as per the GA's pay, it is not the pay per se, but that it was said to be a modest living stipend when it actually came out to be a pretty decent salary.  It's the secrecy and dishonesty that seems to be the problem here more than anything.  Open and honest would have alleviated most complaints as per GA's pay, I'd suggest. 

[busybee]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

The salaried temple positions are interesting to look through (not surprising really though).

What does a temple recorder do different from what a temple president does?  Their pay is a pretty good income (considering it was 10 years ago).

Someone posted elsewhere that the temple president's pay was shown, but I don't see that (?).

Do temple presidents receive a salary, do you know?

Temple Presidents do not earn a salary.

 

The Recorder in our Temple is head of Human resources as well and deals with all staff related issues. He also approves purchases, etc,

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, busybee said:

Here is some up to date info. My husband works for the church. His salary is £43000 per annum. It is market-related to other jobs at his level. Don't know what the big hoohaa is about when it comes to disclosing salaries.

I'm not aware of any "big hoohaa" with respect to disclosing salaries of church employees.  Are you?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Because if it was any amount of money the critics would still grouse. Paul was a tent maker. His critics constantly harped on it.

I'd agree with Cinepro.  And perhaps the main complaint as I've seen it as per the GA's pay, it is not the pay per se, but that it was said to be a modest living stipend when it actually came out to be a pretty decent salary.  It's the secrecy and dishonesty that seems to be the problem here more than anything.  Open and honest would have alleviated most complaints as per GA's pay, I'd suggest. 

But it's not just GA's pay that people are complaining about (which come from returns on investments) it is also how donations are handled which directly come from members tithing and how much is used to finance church expenses and how much is used for charity and humanitarian aid. Without a knowledge of how things are balanced and the reasons behind what is done with the money, people might incorrectly judge that their donations are not being used in the right way and they might decide to withhold donations. Obviously those people don't understand the true spirit of giving, but it could nevertheless cause a reduction in offerings made. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

But it's not just GA's pay that people are complaining about (which come from returns on investments) it is also how donations are handled which directly come from members tithing and how much is used to finance church expenses and how much is used for charity and humanitarian aid. Without a knowledge of how things are balanced and the reasons behind what is done with the money, people might incorrectly judge that their donations are not being used in the right way and they might decide to withhold donations. Obviously those people don't understand the true spirit of giving, but it could nevertheless cause a reduction in offerings made. 

I don't think it's about not understanding "the true spirit of giving". I think it's about wanting to be effective and efficient with donations. It's about being educated.

If you were to make a $10,000 donation to a charity would it matter to you how the funds were spent? Imagine that charity A has a 90% efficiency rating meaning that 90% of donated funds go towards the intended charitable purpose and 10% towards overhead. Charity B has a 60% efficiency rating meaning that 40% goes towards overhead. Would a wise giver consider the differences in efficiency knowing that of their $10,000 donation either $9,000 or $6,000 respectively would go toward the intended purpose? Now imagine that Charity A doesn't disclose specifically how it spends its funds but charity B does. Which seems like the better charity to which one might donate?

I don't think it's about not understanding. It's about being a good steward of resources.

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's about not understanding "the true spirit of giving". I think it's about wanting to be effective and efficient with donations. It's about being educated.

If you were to make a $10,000 donation to a charity would it matter to you how the funds were spent? Imagine that charity A has a 90% efficiency rating meaning that 90% of donated funds go towards the intended charitable purpose and 10% towards overhead. Charity B has a 60% efficiency rating meaning that 40% goes towards overhead. Would a wise giver consider the differences in efficiency knowing that of their $10,000 donation either $9,000 or $6,000 respectively would go toward the intended purpose? Now imagine that Charity A doesn't disclose specifically how it spends its funds but charity B does. Which seems like the better charity to which one might donate?

I don't think it's about not understanding. It's about being a good steward of resources.

The Church is not just another charity. If it was I would agree with your logic. Tithe paying is a command from God that we either obey or not obey. There are many members who don't understand this and they make donations for the wrong reasons. The money I donate belongs to God; not me.  Church leaders are the stewards and I trust them to be good stewards. What if I think they are not good stewards? Does it mean I am going to stop obeying the law of tithing?  O course not. So what difference does it make if I know what they do with the money or not? 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The Church is not just another charity. If it was I would agree with your logic. Tithe paying is a command from God that we either obey or not obey. There are many members who don't understand this and they make donations for the wrong reasons. The money I donate belongs to God; not me.  Church leaders are the stewards and I trust them to be good stewards. What if I think they are not good stewards? Does it mean I am going to stop obeying the law of tithing?  O course not. So what difference does it make if I know what they do with the money or not? 

If it doesn't matter to you whether or not they are good stewards, and you require no evidence that they are good stewards, then it would be reasonable to keep paying regardless. But I think it is an incorrect assumption that the only way one can tithe is by giving directly to the church. Like you said, there are many charities, many which can do great good. I feel that my donation to those places can be just as important and maybe even more effective than donating to the church. But I agree that the church absolutely depends on the attitude that donors will continue to donate no matter what. That is very true for many people and I'm not arguing against that because people can donate however they choose. There is not only one way to donate and only one organization to donate to.

I think the church will eventually come to the realization that people will in fact seek out charities with greater transparency and efficiency. They may not like it but it will be a natural consequence for their approach to finances and transparency.

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it doesn't matter to you whether or not they are good stewards, and you require no evidence that they are good stewards, then it would be reasonable to keep paying regardless. But I think it is an incorrect assumption that the only way one can tithe is by giving directly to the church. Like you said, there are many charities, many which can do great good. I feel that my donation to those places can be just as important and maybe even more effective than donating to the church. But I agree that the church absolutely depends on the attitude that donors will continue to donate no matter what. That is very true for many people and I'm not arguing against that because people can donate however they choose. There is not only one way to donate and only one organization to donate to.

I think the church will eventually come to the realization that people will in fact seek out charities with greater transparency and efficiency. They may not like it but it will be a natural consequence for their approach to finances and transparency.

Sure you can donate to other churches and charities, but If you want to be a member in good standing in the LDS church and partake in the ordinances and blessings of the temple, there is only one organization you can pay your tithing to. I'm pretty sure that principle will never change; financial disclosure or not.  Ask any Bishop or General Authority. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

And they would micro-manage and complain as to how it is being spent and how it should be spent without knowing all the intricate details of the system. 

I am sure if the money is going to where the church says it goes, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about from critics.  Buildings and maintenance, modest salaries and stipends, and the schools it pays for are certainly items of which no rational person can complain.

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

And they would micro-manage and complain as to how it is being spent and how it should be spent without knowing all the intricate details of the system. 

I am sure if the money is going to where the church says it goes, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about from critics.  Buildings and maintenance, modest salaries and stipends, and the schools it pays for are certainly items of which no rational person can complain.

Most church critics are not rational, Their only goal is to find ways to criticize an organization they will always hate. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Most church critics are not rational, Their only goal is to find ways to criticize an organization they will always hate. 

I know that's the apologetic response. Even though there are those that share this view, there are a lot, even most, in my opinion, that don't share your view. They are those who may be faithful but see things that are worthy of criticism and don't say much, because criticism is frowned upon.

[JulieM]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Temple Presidents do not receive a salary as far as I know, but they do receive perks, like the home they live in and I believe a small stipend (not the same as GA's). I think Temple Presidents receive the same kind of perks that Mission Presidents receive.

Thanks. That's interesting to know.  I'd imagine that it's a very busy, full time calling.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'd agree with Cinepro.  And perhaps the main complaint as I've seen it as per the GA's pay, it is not the pay per se, but that it was said to be a modest living stipend when it actually came out to be a pretty decent salary.  It's the secrecy and dishonesty that seems to be the problem here more than anything.  Open and honest would have alleviated most complaints as per GA's pay, I'd suggest. 

Honestly and transparency are always the best policy.  The is especially true for a church that expects members to donate a sizable portion of their income to it.  Knowing where the donations go and how they are spent isn't too much to ask for in MHO.

[JAHS]

52 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I know that's the apologetic response. Even though there are those that share this view, there are a lot, even most, in my opinion, that don't share your view. They are those who may be faithful but see things that are worthy of criticism and don't say much, because criticism is frowned upon.

If God really does lead this church through His prophets then there is no valid criticism. There are 15 prophets, seers, and revelators, if something needs to change they will know when and how to change it. I don't see how people who call themselves "faithful" don't understand this. The truly faithful ones who might, think something is worth criticism, don't say anything, not because it's frowned upon, but because they are humble enough to realize that their opinion may be wrong compared to that of 15 prophets.  

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If God really does lead this church through His prophets then there is no valid criticism. There are 15 prophets, seers, and revelators, if something needs to change they will know when and how to change it. I don't see how people who call themselves "faithful" don't understand this. The truly faithful ones who might, think something is worth criticism, don't say anything, not because it's frowned upon, but because they are humble enough to realize that their opinion may be wrong compared to that of 15 prophets.  

One can have faith (I do) and still recognize that the 15 are imperfect men.  Church leadership has made mistakes throughout our history.  To say that we should never question anything they say or do would be advocating for a cult like blind obedience