GAs being paid and "lay ministry"?

I can give you my “take” on this based on what I have read, but I don’t know that I have footnotes for my comments.

I am rather OK with mission president’s getting paid as it can be very disruptive to many of their careers and disruptive to their families. Sure some (especially in the Mormon corridor) do well by other members in their firm that “cover” for them and they come back with even more prestige. Some come back and have to rebuild back to where they were at. For most they make quite a sacrifice for 3 years. They “lose” the opportunity to get the earnings they would have. So I think many don’t begin to make up financially. I still wish they would be more up-front that their is some compensation going on.

Now when you get into GA’s and the 70’s I don’t know exactly how much they make, but I think many have the same issue of only getting a portion of a reimbursement for their time away from their job. I will admit that it seems to me that they do work these guys rather hard. They generally are away from their families most weekends and when they do travel they stay in the house of the SP (can be nice, but being more of an introvert I would rather a simple safe hotel room to unwind). Once again, I still wish they would be more up-front that their is some compensation going on.

Now getting into the top guys (and I am sure the top 6 sisters get compensated less if at all) I am more unsure. I assume that BKP coming up through CES probably got a bump. Several other apostles (DFU, RMN, I don’t think they are getting close to the salary they would have pulled down in their previous jobs). I also feel for them that they don’t get to retire until they are about at the point of being an invalid. They lose out on a lot of time being a grandpa. Once again and especially with this group I wish they would be more up-front that their is some compensation going on.

In fact I look at this as something the church is whitewashing. I do not feel they are being completely honest when they say we have a completely lay ministry. They could admit this without being forced to disclose the amounts.

My $0.02 on the subject.

on own now – 2 good points that I think I would have to agree with. Many leaders give a TON of time (most all free time and much of the family time). I don’t “feel” that there is much “doing it for the money” – especially when compared with televangelists and such. I still add my, “but I think they should be more open about that fact”.

Count me among those who doesn’t mind that mission presidents, temple presidents and GAs get compensated. They are often asked to give up a great deal as others have pointed out. And, they are asked to work long hours and spend a great deal of time away from their families. My son’s mission president’s mother died while he was in South America.

The only thing that bothers me about the whole thing is that I think the church could be a bit more upfront. In the past I have been asked by nonmembers if it’s true no one is paid and I tell the truth – and always got the answer “that’s what I thought, it just didn’t make sense they could do all that with no pay.” So something like “The vast majority of church leadership are unpaid lay ministry, but a few who dedicate their efforts full time in serving the church are compensated for their work.”

The reason I brought this up is because of something I read in the Greg Prince DOM book. It had to do with building activities of the church during the big growth around the 60s. The building people put a LOT of money into mission homes, for example, and built what would be considered lavish houses. The reason?…overseas the church was often meeting in rented rooms, like over a pub, and the credibility of this “American Church” suffered horribly. The influx of money and some of those lavish comforts built prestige and credibility. I see the value of that: If someone speaking to you is in a tee-shirt and shorts with grungy fingers, they are not going to be listened to as much; however, if they are in a nice suit, well groomed, they end up having more credibility.

I see the need and value of this–we need to have people who look the part or we loose face and attention, which DOES hurt the cause.

There is a balance however.

I have known want briefly in my life–like where is my next meal coming from. In some situations, the problem is where is the housing going to come from for those in my family, and the finances are strapped and we are in trouble. Elsewhere in the world, there are many who live with want regularly: they have little, and some even go without food or basic shelter/clothing. Very common. So, here we have these GAs who have money in their pockets–and we say “well, they did give up jobs where they could have made a lot more (which is true, many of them did)”–but on the flip side, you have children and others who go without basic necessities.

I have to say that the “balance” the church has to engage in for these things is difficult to deal with. These Q15 men probably are or were making over 6 figures or more. Do they get remunerated at that level now?…possibly. Do they need to look clean and sharp, dignified and successful?…yes. How does that balance with the fact they could have made more money outside of the church?…perhaps a big point for some, but not much different for me. You see, the question I have is how does that money those guys bring in resonate with those who are less fortunate, and live off a dollar a week?

Its all about intent…big time.

I believe what the BoM says about wealth: the only reason for seeking it is to bless and help your neighbor. At the same time, I see the need for GAs to drive nice cars, live in reasonable homes, and if they entertain, perhaps even a leaning toward the lavish…etc. Its a balance act, and a tricky one.

Its this balance stuff that is tricky for me.

I told my husband that the GA’s and MPs are paid just now and he doesn’t seem satisfied with it being for families since most of those men don’t have anymore children at home. So they would only have to support their spouse. It’s too bad there’s no way to know how much they’re making. I know it would bother me if my tithing money contributing to paying the GA’s millions of dollars for them to live in wealth. I would be fine with it though if they were making enough for them and their spouse to live comfortably. It’s the idea of them being extremely wealthy that bothers me. I hope that isn’t the case. We never see the prophet’s house. I guess that may be a safety thing, but the idea that few people know the GA’s are being paid and never see anything of theirs that could indicate wealth or a moderate living is odd. Eta: upon thinking about it more, there’s no reason to see things like their cars and homes because they could be rich already from retirement. I do still hope that we aren’t paying them large amounts of money with our tithing.

I won’t go into specifics, but very few of the current top leadership make more than they would make if they had stayed in their careers and never been top leaders. Particularly when compared with corporate executives of organizations nowhere close to the LDS Church’s size and resources, the difference is unmistakable. Also, I don’t envy them one bit, since they sacrifice so much time away from their families.

I have no problem with what they make, but I also would like more transparency about it. I especially would like it known that their stipends come from the profits of the corporate side. I like that (and I like that we have a corporate side), but many people don’t like it – so I understand the hesitancy to make it public.

President Monson has lived in the same house for decades (a modest one, by American standards) – and that is and was true of others who lived in the SLC area.

Finally, mission homes might be considered lavish in third-world countries, but they aren’t lavish in any other way or in first-world countries. Neither are temple president’s homes, in areas where temple presidents need homes. “Lavish” is a relative, loaded term – and they aren’t lavish in the way nearly everyone would define that term.