- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote:
Check out the homes lived in by all LDS presidents according to this website:
http://www.moroni10.com/prophets_homes/Thomas_Monson.html Wow, that’s pretty cool.
LookingHard wrote:There must be some “bad air” in those condo’s on 123 East 2nd Avenue. It seems that the last 4 church presidents passed away not too many years after moving into this address. Coincidence???
😯 Nah, it just smells like old people.
:shifty: Serious answer, it’s probably a place that’s closer to the action as their mobility decreases. It probably also has sweet private medical facilities to help treat them when they become infirm. In other words they head there
becausethey have declining health. I don’t begrudge the GAs and Q15 a decent annual salary. They do work hard and sacrifice a lot of family time. As Ray has pointed out elsewhere they simultaneously make too little and too much. They are in a bit of a no win situation. It’s likely the lack of transparency that bothers many people. Local members are held accountable every year at tithing settlement and every two years during temple recommends interviews but we don’t see that higher ups are held accountable. I don’t think the financial reports done by “independent auditors” and reporting on during General Conference hold much enormous credibility, although they do hold some.
A reliable source told me about 10 years ago that every Thursday the Q15 are served a lavish meal – lobster, kobe beef, etc. Frankly that bothers me more than a salary. If they want to eat at Ruth’s Chris steakhouse for lunch they can on their own dime (or Ben Franklin).
Re: temple and mission presidents. I don’t begrudge them a decent expense account either. I know more than one mission pres and temple pres who come home in their late 50s or early 60s and basically gave up a their careers. Maybe it’s by choice, but 3 years away from family to supervise 19 year olds would try anyone’s patience.
My theory is that the church fears financial transparency because if we knew the extent of the church’s financial health many people would stop paying tithing.
Roadrunner wrote:It’s likely the lack of transparency that bothers many people. Local members are held accountable every year at tithing settlement and every two years during temple recommends interviews but we don’t see that higher ups are held accountable.
In fact, we are not held accountable at tithing settlement any more than “higher ups”. As we have always discussed, the bishop doesn’t ask to see your W2 or ask how tithing was calculated.I personally don’t want the same transparency about me that we always ask for about those above us. I would be satisfied if the Church would acknowledge that the GAs receive funds to support themselves and their families, but I don’t need to know how much. If the Church did publish exact amounts per person, there would be grumbling, even if the figure were something incredibly modest.
Quote:I hope that isn’t the case. We never see the prophet’s house.
I know we now have the thread to look at the pictures of their homes but I know President Hinckley’s homes were all part of his families homes. Once he got them he often added on to them. Most of that work was hands on, not just some ritzy contractor. So it’s hard to look at a home and decide if it’s a mansion or was always a mansion.
Also my mom is friends with Howard W. Hunter’s daughter. My mom said the daughter was better off, wealth wise than the dad.
The other part to consider about the stipends and family is that President Monson, President Hinckley, and maybe a couple of others were called to be GA’s when they were thirty years old. This means kids were still at home, braces were still needed, medical insurance etc. I know it doesn’t apply to all of them but I can’t begrudge the church financially compensating those families for their sacrifice.
Saying this information makes me feel kind of creepy. I don’t mean to be. Oh well 
Supposedly, most of the 15 own multiple properties. Some of them have been confirmed by documentation, some not. Some own multiple homes, some own multiple apartments, some have a combination. There are probably other properties that we don’t know about. For example, President Monson, who lives quite modestly compared to some of the others (just my ignorant opinion–could
totallybe wrong here) still owns his old house, but (is rumored to have) an add on property that is much larger behind it (although we’re not talking lavish, here) and lives in an apartment in Salt Lake. Not here to point fingers, just adding some information to the conversation. Like I said, I don’t think he lives lavishly. I have some more concrete knowledge about some of the properties of the 12. I’ve walked past some of them as I was in the neighborhood. Some of them are located in luxurious areas. Significantly wealthy eras. Surrounded by mansions. And yes, some of them are quite nice. This used to be a shelf-issue for me. It didn’t jive well with all the anti-wealthy pride rhetoric the BOM taught me as a kid. I can absolutely see why people would be upset with this and it would damage their testimonies or make them question where their tithing money is going, even if some of these apostles might have been making a lot of money before they were called.
From my perspective, their properties (remember, there probably are multiple ones) could be seen as excessive for lower or middle class people. However, I think a person coming from the upper class (which, in America, few people seem to think they’re actually in) would think they really are modest. I think it’s just a perspective issue, and perhaps I’m giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt, but I think they’re are trying to live simply. But perspective does alter how that looks.
For example, Elder Oaks no longer lives in is old home (although I don’t know if he still owns it or not. I think the Church does now). His current home also isn’t huge, even though he lives in a luxurious area by Elder Uchtdorf. I’ve seen it. It looks modest compared to the huge properties by it.
For me it also helps to remember that people like Elder Oaks, Elder Nelson, Uchtdorf, etc. did have lucrative careers before they became GA’s. President Monson was in banking and has good money management skills and such. So do others. I expect those with longer previous careers do have better houses. Even multiple houses. I also know that Utah, for a long time – I can’t prove it now, was a great place to stretch your income. I grew up in California in a modest, middle class neighborhood. We had plenty, but you wouldn’t call it a mansion. When I was 16 our Stake went to EFY, the weekend before EFY opened we were hosted by a Stake in Utah. One of the main houses was, by visual standard a mansion. While we were there, the Utah people kept telling us the price of this million dollar home. When I got home and reported the amazing house and it’s price tag to my mom, she laughed. While we stood in our basic kitchen my mom explained that the very house I lived in was over a million dollars. And so was practically everyone else in our ward. That was a huge perspective changer. I do grant that 40+ years have passed and price of livings have changed, but the point is, if a GA makes money somewhere else, in business or whatever the dollar may stretch a bit farther.
As to the apartments in Salt Lake, I totally get it. They are upwards of 80 years young, the hours are long, commutes draining. A small apartment nearby helps. I also believe those apartments have security. It’s a little like living in the Vice Presidents Mansion. It’s not the Vice Presidents family home, it’s the borrowed home and the next Vice President gets it after him. But it’s all set up security wise.
My personal lay ministry gripe is in the publication world. A GA can make money from books he writes and publishes. Those often are collections from talks etc. Bishops and Stake Presidents don’t get that. It sticks in my craw.
Well a bishop or stake president could write a book but I’m guessing the issue is that no one would buy the book simply becausethe person that wrote it was a BP/SP? Nibbler – I think that might be a training issue. We are puppy whipped on the big guys. 
Why are members comfortable with the commercial arm of the church being used to compensate church leaders? I am sure a more capable person could be found for each board position who would take less compensation. Those board positions are used simply to pass income to church leaders. How is that more righteous than a simple paycheck? How does the commercial arm of the church fulfill the mission of the gospel of JC? Isn’t that supposed to be the goal? I think the commercial arm has lost its way. Profits are not being used to care for the needy, the sick or the least among is. The commercial arm started out being funded by tithes. Somewhere along the way, it forgot where it came from. It is absolutely a For Profit endeavor. Why are we okay with that? At what point do the profits get rolled back into the church? To me, it looks like they don’t. The commercial arm stays always separate. Why is that okay???
nibbler wrote:Well a bishop or stake president could write a book but I’m guessing the issue is that no one would buy the book simply
becausethe person that wrote it was a BP/SP? We do buy books from people like Terryl & Fiona Givens, Brad Wilcox, and Adam Miller because we like the messages. I agree with Mom, it does bug me Deseret Book advertises GA books on BYUTV and agree that shouldn’t be the reason to buy it – nevertheless, I’m sure that’s the reason some of hem sell.
amateurparent, If the Church had liquidated its assets during the depression to give all their money to the poor, then there would be no Church today… but there would still be poor people.
The Church’s for-profit holdings are taxed. Income generated by them is no different from a person’s salary, an individual 401K, or income from a mutual fund or a rental property. These fuel the activities that we want to perform in life.
My issue is with the lack of transparency like Ray. I have no problem with GA,s and even local leaders getting paid…but don’t color the water to the members. That lies the way of whitewashed history and other ways they have led us astray… And they need to repent. I like it that uchdorft was honest in church saying that no local leaders are paid. At least he was honest. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Yes, GAs are paid. Yes, we have a lay ministry.
In most things, I prefer both/and to either/or. I actually love life in the middle. It is much more enjoyable to me that at either extreme. It is harder, but it is better.
amateurparent wrote:Why are members comfortable with the commercial arm of the church being used to compensate church leaders? I am sure a more capable person could be found for each board position who would take less compensation. Those board positions are used simply to pass income to church leaders. How is that more righteous than a simple paycheck?
Good question. For me, it’s all part of the same organization. The church may have many different legal entities, but the funds originally had to come from church sources, or were generated due to church influence and power in the early days of Utah settlement.
Again, I don’t disagree with people being paid. You normally get better service when you pay people to do things. Not always, but it sure helps sustain commitment.
And on this note, I have felt many times that church leaders have been extremely negligent in their duty to members. At the local level. I have often wished Bishops and SP’s were paid so they could devote the time necessary to their callings. Or structure their callings so they have less to do. I realize they are volunteers, but they are volunteers with the equivalent with full-time jobs, so paying them is something I think would help at certain levels…
I would love to see our universities (church ones) train people to be paid leaders in the ward and stake so we don’t have to pull people from $150,000 a year jobs and make them earn $40,000 for a few years…
I remember a conversation I overhead in the hall, in passing, from a Stake Executive Secretary to a member. The member was following up on something that handn’t been done in months…and the Stake Exec Sec replied “The SP are busy men and they move at their own pace”….
And so, the member went away with their issue unresolved, with no end in sight.
I also don’t see how paying local leaders is necessarily priestcraft. Sure, people like Jimmy Bakker who lived lavish life styles on the backs of faithful followers might qualify, but a man earning a decent wage on a short or medium term contract is another matter.
I also wish they could separate the church welfare arm from the Bishop’s role.
Quote:How does the commercial arm of the church fulfill the mission of the gospel of JC? Isn’t that supposed to be the goal? I think the commercial arm has lost its way. Profits are not being used to care for the needy, the sick or the least among is. The commercial arm started out being funded by tithes. Somewhere along the way, it forgot where it came from. It is absolutely a For Profit endeavor. Why are we okay with that? At what point do the profits get rolled back into the church? To me, it looks like they don’t. The commercial arm stays always separate. Why is that okay???
One thing it does, is it allows the church to say “no tithing funds were used to fund X, Y, Z”. I see that as its primary justification.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.