- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Does anybody know how much General Authorities get paid? I read online where someone (supposedly a reliable source, not an anti-Mormon) posted some figures and I was shocked, specifically at how much a member of the Twelve gets and even more so at how much a member of the 1st Presidency gets. But maybe these numbers were bogus. Does anybody really know? I think as an active tithing-paying temple rec holding member it is not amiss for me to ask this question since at least some of my tithing goes to pay these salaries. It’s also important for me to state that I do not begrudge GA’s their salaries, especially since my father was once a mission president and supported his family with a salary from the church, modest though it was.
The figures posted on sites are bogus, since the actual stipends / salaries aren’t published. Everything I’ve ever read is pure speculation, and much of it is laughable – some for the amounts, but lots for the ridiculous assumptions behind the guesses. I don’t know what they make, but I have no issue with them being paid. Frankly, I don’t want the numbers to be published. There can’t be a “right” amount for the public, since whatever it is will be fine with the believing members and too much for the non-believers. If people start fighting about the exact amount . . . what a fiasco that would be – and it’s guaranteed if the figures are published.
Somehow other churches publish their information without causing a riot. The LDS church published the info until 1959 without causing a whole bunch of issues. They publish the info for UK because it is the law there, and there hasn’t been an issue (of course it doesn’t tell us how much the GA’s make). There is nothing wrong with wanting this information made public. Transparency is how corruption is held at bay.
CEO’s of a corporation this size make a lot of money. It is not unreasonable to conjecture that the CEO’s of the LDS church likewise make very good money. They made good money before becoming GA’s, too (for the most part).
D&C 64: 38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.
39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.
40 And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead.
According to the LDS scriptures the inhabitants of Zion (we could argue that is all the members of the church) are to judge ALL things pertaining to Zion. We are supposed to judge if the prophets, apostles, bishops and councelors are being faithful in their stewardship. How can we do that if things are not transparent?
When all the top 15 in the church are related to eachother somehow…and they are the ones deciding who to appoint to these lifetime paid positions, it is a problem. It is not a good thing.
Personally, I find it hurtful that anyone who wants financial transparency is automatically labeled an non-believer or an apostate or unfaithful. God does not expect me to put my faith in men (arm of the flesh) but him only.
Quote:Personally, I find it hurtful that anyone who wants financial transparency is automatically labeled an non-believer or an apostate or unfaithful. God does not expect me to put my faith in men (arm of the flesh) but him only.
Amen. I agree totally. My own opinion is mine, and I have no problem with others who want financial transparency.
I’ve just seen and heard and read enough to believe it would be a fiasco – but, again, that’s just my own personal opinion.
I see Ray’s point, and agree that people would complain (especially at first). But the truth is, anti-mormons complain no matter what, and apologists apologize no matter what. Personally, I’m in just me’s camp for wanting financial transparency. A bigger problem that I see is that it would seem that general membership is oblivious to the fact that they are paid. We had a lesson in SS yesterday in which one member of the class indicated that a mark of a true prophet is that they shouldn’t be paid for their service. I thought that was a bit ironic, and no one rushed to correct him. It’s fine with me that they get paid, especially since they devote most of their time to it. And frankly, I don’t really want to know what they make. I just want the transparency on principle, not because I care about the amount or want to judge the church for its actions.
To answer the original post, I agree with Ray that attempts to pin it down to a number are speculation, even if they are reasonable. I will say that when I graduated from BYU the IT dept. at church approached me with wanting me to submit a resume. I was a bit turned off by the salary. Typically, church employees don’t make very good money (at least in my experience, and I have worked for the church before). It’s almost like there’s some sort of expectation of that church employees should just be grateful to be working for such a great cause. OTOH, it also shows frugality which the church preaches. I would say that in financial matters the church very much practices what it preaches.
Euhemerus wrote:Typically, church employees don’t make very good money (at least in my experience, and I have worked for the church before). It’s almost like there’s some sort of expectation of that church employees should just be grateful to be working for such a great cause.
I was reading about Pres Hinckley and the job he got with the church right after his mission to develop missionary publications and tracts. They paid him $65 a month, and so he had to teach seminary for another $35 a month. That was back in the late 1930s, but I think that was his general feeling…he didn’t take the job for money, he just needed enough to support his family and he found the other aspects of working with church leaders as the alluring part of the job.While that is frugal…I think that is realistic…if the supply is high (lots of people would feel “blessed” to work for such a good cause), the pay is low.
I think most GAs made their money in business before being called as GAs (generalized statement, but what I remember from accounts).
I agree with heber. The vast majority of GA’s are independently wealthy, sit on boards of corporations, have family fortunes, write books for profit, etc. Their salaries would probably be meaningless to most of them. Not sure why they keep it secret, except to protect the financial reputations of those GA’s who are not independently wealthy. (Assuming that there’s not a set standard for salaries, which I would guess there’s not, again depending on the individual GA, eg. some GA’s probably refuse a salary, some may need it, thus the secrecy) I believe transparency in this issue would be good. I think the hidden things are silly and lead to speculation. I feel it should stop.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.