January surprise?

This is for encouragement, ideas, and support for people going through a faith transition no matter where you hope to end up. This is also the place to laugh, cry, and love together.
User avatar
TheRunningmom
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:12 pm

January surprise?

Post by TheRunningmom » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:56 am

There is supposed to be a big leak today or tomorrow that will help to bring more financial transparency. The reddit poster suggested asking people what they would consider a modest stipend to be for the leaders of the church. So...what say you?

User avatar
Mormorrisey
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: January surprise?

Post by Mormorrisey » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:06 am

Yeah, I saw that this morning. I have a feeling, though, that it's not going to be as high as we think. Most of these guys have either been successful in business or in their professions long enough to have enjoyed a significant income, or have been around the church long enough to have made a decent living that they don't need a whole heck of a lot. So while I'm guessing it's still a yearly six figure salary, I'm not going higher than around 200 K per year.

The point being, though, of course, that this "non-paying ministry" is simply a load of bunk, that there are a lot of high paying dudes at the top. Just like any other corporation. It will just give some ammo to those of our persuasion when we encounter those who say, "the Brethren just give and sacrifice so much, they don't make anything off the church." Nonsense. Of course they do.
"And I don't need you...or, your homespun philosophies."
"And when you try to break my spirit, it won't work, because there's nothing left to break."

Korihor
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:37 am

Re: January surprise?

Post by Korihor » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:38 am

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... formation/

It's out. It has Eyring's pay stub from 2000 and a letter to a 1Q70 indicating the increase base living expense for 2014

IMHO - it is modest.

The problem with the LDS church is there are too many chiefs to pay. If each member of the 1Q70 gets paid the same, that is $8.4M in payroll just for those guys. Lets just assume it's currently $150k for the Q15. That is $2.2M.

Unlike other churches where the leadership is much more consolidated the pay is increased.
You can say I'm moving the goal posts, but the bigger picture is not individual pay but total labor burden. Also, we can be confident that the higher your rank the more you're paid. So if an apostle was making $90k in 2000, you can be sure his secretary and all subordinates were paid less. I'm not sure it if is an issue or not but the Q15 should be set financially. The poor underpaid subordinates probably should have been paid more.

I'm not upset by the amount, just the lack of transparency. I'm am happy to have this information - keep it coming.
Last edited by Korihor on Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reading can severely damage your ignorance.

User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: January surprise?

Post by Not Buying It » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:51 am

Korihor wrote:https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... formation/

It's out. It has Eyring's pay stub from 2000 and a letter to a 1Q70 indicating the increase base living expense for 2014

IMHO - it is modest.
I think we all have to admit, the evidence we see there indicates that they are paid far less than many of us suspected.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 4577
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: January surprise?

Post by Hagoth » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:29 am

Not Buying It wrote:I think we all have to admit, the evidence we see there indicates that they are paid far less than many of us suspected.
It does raise a few questions for me:

1) Is this Pres. Eyring's only pay stub, or is it merely his ecclesiastical salary? Does he draw additional salary from sitting on boards, overseeing projects, etc?
2) It looks like 70s earn more than apostles, which makes question 1 seem more salient
3) What do the other components of their compensation (cars, rent, housekeeping, clothing, insurance, etc, etc.) add up to?
4) How do men who have worked exclusively for the church own so much real estate - (e.g. Packer and Monson valued in the millions)?
5) Projecting these numbers backward in time, someone like Joseph Fielding Smith would probably have been making $20K/year. How is it his children were fighting over an inheritance of millions of dollars?
6) What has been "gifted" to them?
7) What has been "gifted" to their wives and other family members? I seem to recall that a prominent apartment building was owned by Sister Hinkley, despite the fact that she never had an income.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
document
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:17 am

Re: January surprise?

Post by document » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:43 pm

It is modest.

My bishop's (non-LSD) pay is somewhere around $110,000 a year. That doesn't include the fact that during their tenure they live in church provided housing.

We must remember that these men are _not_ just ecclesiastical leaders, they are running a large corporation at the same time.

User avatar
LostMormon
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:38 am

Re: January surprise?

Post by LostMormon » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:04 pm

so this would seem to indicate that HBE was making about 85K per year 17 years ago, I would guess that would translate to about 120K today? this is far lower than I expected.

One the stubs has a Reimb ST for 5442.00, Reimbursement of some kind?

even though this is not modest compared to my income, or probably even the average tithe payer, It's lower than I expected. And I really don't think most members would have a problem with it, so why are they so secretive about it, they should be shouting this from the rooftops.

Somehow, I don't think we are seeing the whole picture, we know they don't pay tithing, but are there other expenses that are paid for that we don't see?

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 2914
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: January surprise?

Post by Corsair » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:24 pm

In the early 1980s there was some complaint from seminary teachers about how much they were paid. The answer given back to them was that CES is paid just as much as apostles were paid so everyone is equally sacrificing for the Lord's kingdom. I don't know how much CES is paid these days, but I doubt it's anywhere near a six figure salary.

I will grant that general authorities would be paid much more working at an executive level at any other multinational corporation. But this is a healthy salary for people that are often above retirement age and no longer have children at home. At the very least, these guys are not simply living off retirement savings working pro bono for a cause they literally believe in.

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: January surprise?

Post by wtfluff » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:39 pm

Korihor wrote:IMHO - it is modest.

The problem with the LDS church is there are too many chiefs to pay. If each member of the 1Q70 gets paid the same, that is $8.4M in payroll just for those guys. Lets just assume it's currently $150k for the Q15. That is $2.2M.
document wrote:We must remember that these men are _not_ just ecclesiastical leaders, they are running a large corporation at the same time.
This is what "Unpaid Clergy" looks like, eh?



Corsair wrote:In the early 1980s there was some complaint from seminary teachers about how much they were paid. The answer given back to them was that CES is paid just as much as apostles were paid so everyone is equally sacrificing for the Lord's kingdom. I don't know how much CES is paid these days, but I doubt it's anywhere near a six figure salary.
THIS^ will be interesting to watch.
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

Keep the company of those who seek the truth - run from those who have found it -Václav Havel

The Beauty of Gray

Korihor
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:37 am

Re: January surprise?

Post by Korihor » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:56 pm

For me it's important to remember that modest does not mean cheap. I certainly wouldn't want them to be underpaid.
Some of you have been to my house, I feel like it is modest yet it is a nice home. Compared to something in Africa or parts of central america, it's probably palatial. Compared to certain areas in Scottsdale, it's peasant housing. So we need to keep perspective in mind.

But we have another problem, within the lord's kingdom, even Utah, there are rich people and poor people. The wealthy would look at a $90k salary and scoff that it's a peasant wage and how much more they earn than an apostle of the Lord. Given the LDS inclination of the prosperity gospel, wealthy members would feel they are more righteous than an apostle. That wouldn't go over so well.
The poor would look at the same $90k salary and become overcome with frustration that they are paying tithing while they earn a small salary just to support the leadership.
I think the church is in a lose lose situation. The system was doomed from the onset and JS/BY recognized this.

Again, my biggest complaint is not how much, just the fact it is kept hidden. They obviously don't trust us so they keep it hidden.
Reading can severely damage your ignorance.

User avatar
LostMormon
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:38 am

Re: January surprise?

Post by LostMormon » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:10 pm

good point, as you point out there are always going to be people that look down on them for not making as much as they do, and there are always going to be those that are unhappy because they make a lot more than them. I am not sure I wouldn't do the same thing if I was in their position. If you think about it, are you open with your fellow employees about how much you make? It's discouraged at my work, and I think for this very reason. It's just not something that is discussed.

On the other hand, when we are the one's paying the salary via our tithes and offerings, I think we have a right to know, it's a bit of a slippery slope. Up until recently, the church has been good a keeping secrets, they probably thought, why not just keep this one under our hats.

User avatar
John G.
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Contact:

Re: January surprise?

Post by John G. » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:03 pm

I'm a fan of public disclosure of all the salaries. The church does run on tithes afterall.

In the past I have worked in a state government that had wide open Sunshine laws that required the publication of all state employee salaries. When I first found out that all our salaries were online I thought it was a total invasion of my privacy. But I got used to it. And, more importantly, the public got used to it. Some state employees had high salaries but it was explainable based on the job they did. Since the salary information was always updated and available it really wasn't newsworthy or a big deal. (And on an employee level, you always knew where you were in the office politics pecking order based on who got paid what.)
Last edited by John G. on Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If your children are taught untruths on evolution in the public schools or even in our Church schools, provide them with a copy of President Joseph Fielding Smith's excellent rebuttal in his book Man, His Origin and Destiny."

Ezra Taft Benson

User avatar
LaMachina
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:27 am

Re: January surprise?

Post by LaMachina » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:54 pm

If NCAA regulations and the constant violations that result have taught me anything it's that there are plenty of ways to get paid despite zero (or modest) salary.

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 4577
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: January surprise?

Post by Hagoth » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:22 pm

LostMormon wrote:On the other hand, when we are the one's paying the salary via our tithes and offerings, I think we have a right to know...
See, that marks you as hard-hearted and stiff-necked right there. If you were humble and faithful you wouldn't be so vain as to talk like it's YOUR money and YOU need to be accounted to by God for what he does with HIS money... or so I have been told in no uncertain terms when I broached the subject on a faithful forum.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
Zadok
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: January surprise?

Post by Zadok » Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:53 pm

Indeed, a 'modest' stipend and parsonage. But don't forget this cash deposit does not include the company car, the expense account, the full and total travel allowance, free tuition for kids, payments made directly to 'staff', like cook, housekeeper, gardener, pool boy and gigolo while the 70 is traveling. I suppose that their Truvada prescription may have a small co-pay, but still.....
If I'm a bird, why can't I fly?

User avatar
Jinx
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:32 pm

Re: January surprise?

Post by Jinx » Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:56 pm

DH's grandfather was a GA before they started paying them, and their family of six children really had some struggles. Grandpa wrote a ton of books to help support his family. So the stipend was really a blessing for them.

That said, I hate that the church is denying that these stipends come from tithing money. That's the same BS they used about the mall. All church funds are ultimately tithing funds.
“This is the best part of the week!” – Homer Simpson
“It’s the longest possible time before more church!” – Lisa Simpson

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: January surprise?

Post by Emower » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:54 pm

I don't view a six figure salary as modest and I think perspective is irrelevant here. I know they could be making more in other jobs and it seems a pittance when viewed in perspective of the kind of organization they run. The bottom line is that they by admission are aloof from the world and the world's perspectives. They are supposed to be doing Jesus' work. When they say it is a "modest" stipend, modest should be and is typically taken in the context of Jesus and the gospel. Not in the context of whether you have a Harvard mba or not. The median income in America is 50k. What aggravates me is that I have always been taught that the reason we have rich white lawyers for our leaders is because they devote their life to the church and hey, they don't get paid much to do that by the way, so they need to be independently wealthy in order to make that work. And here we find out that literally ANY one could be supremely comfortable doing this job on that salary. So, as it turns out, this really is just a good old boys club.

User avatar
Just This Guy
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Almost Heaven

Re: January surprise?

Post by Just This Guy » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:56 am

"The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

User avatar
document
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:17 am

Re: January surprise?

Post by document » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:59 am

I think the church is in a lose lose situation.
I agree. It isn't because I disagree with them getting paid, it is more because of the Mormon attitude towards paid clergy. When I was LDS I have heard many people (including myself when I was a missionary) making fun of other churches because they hired a professional priest or pastor. I looked upon my church as somehow better than others and more legit because our people weren't paid. It also gave me warm fuzzies to realize that our church budget was really going to do what churches should do, rather than line the pocket of someone looking to benefit off of the Good Word.

I've had a few LDS people attempt to discourage me from my current church because I couldn't trust the priest as she was paid.

I'm happy that they are paid, they should be. I also believe that bishops, ward clerks, young men's and women's presidents, primary presidents, organists, and stake presidents should be compensated as well.

However, they need to stop judging other sects because their priests and pastors are paid.

They cannot have their cake and eat it, too.

User avatar
Hermey
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:32 pm

Re: January surprise?

Post by Hermey » Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:51 am

I highly doubt this represents their entire income from the Church or any other entities it owns or controls. If there is anything that they are good at, it is playing the game of hiding the money and the associated paper trail. They have an army of experts they employ to use the accounting rules, procedures and tax code to legally accomplish it. And just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests