I told my wife that they absolutely get paid and she said no way. I tried to find reliable sources about it, ones that she would accept, but I couldn't find anything convincing.

I showed her the Mormonthink site with Grant Palmer's interviews with a general authority and she was, to say the least, not impressed with this third hand, anonymous information that sounded frankly silly even as I was reading it. I'm not saying it wasn't true, but it sure wouldn't hold up in court.

So I was left with my proverbial member in my hand looking like an unreliable crank. Now I am wondering if I am the one that has been misled. Do the GAs really get a nice stipend for being GAs? And since I think they do, is there ANY reliable info on how much they get? Even reliable info on how much they started with as GAs and how much they died with?

If memory serves (and it usually doesn't) there is an interview with I think Larry King where Gordon Hinckley admitted the G.A.s are paid a stipend. You'd have to hunt it down.

OK thanks I will track that down. That would be a hard one to argue with. Now if I could only find out how much~

No - not at all.

They are not a paid ministry.

They get "a stipend" - not a paycheck.

As Bill Clinton said: "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is"...

Stipend ---bull

They EACH get about $50,000 a MONTH. ( Yessssssss-a MONTH )
PLUS ~~~They are provided with a nice vehicle , gas allowance , and ALLLL travel expenses.

I stand corrected : It's $60 to $80,000 a YEAR . ( Trust me...this is STILL more than what you & I make.)
Also........The General Women's Auxillary leaders ALL get a monthly wage , car provided , & travel expenses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2015 11:27AM by momto15kids.

They are one in the same.

Instead they get a "living stipend". They are reimbursed for their living expenses, which is all of them. If they actually got a salary, they'd have to report that and pay it.

In the Mission President's handbook, it specifically guides them to not report their stipends and not to pay taxes on them.

Both Hinckley and Monson were life long church employees. Where does she think their money came from?

Heresy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Both Hinckley and Monson were life long church
> employees. Where does she think their money came
> from.

Monson was a Church employee, then he became an apostle
fifty-two years ago in 1963.

His net worth today is over a million dollars.

Yep, sack-cloth and ashes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2015 08:31PM by baura.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_finances/No_paid_ministry/General_Authorities_living_stipend
This church supporting site agrees they receive stipends!

I personally know a 1stQ70, now emeritus. He was paid a salary. We have discussed it. Please note, though, that the salary was less than what he had been paying previously in tithing. So, unless you are in the big leagues (top 15) or write lots of books (use a ghost writer), they are not making bank.

Their "stipend" is extremely handsome, and they live in extreme comfort. One can argue whether or not a stipend qualifies as an "income," but it's a purely academic argument. It would be much like orthodox Jewish scholars arguing the Law. No, wait. It is EXACTLY LIKE Jewish scholars arguing the Law. Just like the Pharisees of old, LDS leaders couch things in terms of the law and tax codes, and what is and is not actually a paid position. All we have to do is expand on how mission presidents are paid--we know that because we have the documents on it--and then magnify it somewhat. Mission presidents same thousands of dollars by not having to pay income taxes due to the legalistic and secretive nature of their "stipend."

Remember, too, that apparently they have signed over all their savings and investments to the church, and they lose all if they turn against the church. This is likely what keeps them "honest" and ensures their devotion. They know first-hand that they are not prophets, seers, or revelators. But to admit that would make them no more than homeless men on the skids down near the old train station.

+1

Refer to Uchtdorf's talk when he said TSCC has no "paid LOCAL clergy". It's not much, but it is an admission in conference that they do have paid "clergy".

They also are paid to be on the boards of directors of companies.

In 1996, the church made a "big deal" announcing that GAs would be asked to no longer be on the boards of directors of companies, as their focus should be on the work of the church.

Except...not really. From the church's announcement:

“It is anticipated that there will be one exception. With reference to Church-owned corporations, most of these are now subsidiaries of Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Deseret Management Corporation will continue as a holding company with its board composed of representatives from the ranks of the General Authorities, the First Presidency said.

So the boards of church-owned for-profit companies are made up *entirely* of GAs, and they are paid (quite well) for being on those boards. Since ONLY GAs are on those boards, this is how the church pays them without saying the church pays them.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/news-of-the-church/general-authorities-to-leave-business-boards?lang=eng

The Oxford dictionary (the one true dictionary) defines stipend as: "a fixed regular sum paid as a salary or as expenses to a clergyman, teacher, or public official" There is no clarification as to amount. The problem in the LDS Church, as I see it, is that the term is used with the implication that stipend means small or token which is far from the actual meaning of the word and unlikely in terms of what these leaders get.

While it may never be known their actual "pay" a more important issue is the fact that the church gives no accounting for monies received or for their dispersal. If their definition of stipend is really small or token surely revealing it would only add to the idea of humble apostles working for the gospel. Keeping it secret only adds to the debate.

It has been said here that upon becoming a GA they are given a million dollar interest free loan to clear up their credit.

The loan is then forgiven but only if they remain compliant.

Pretty slick non-disclosure mechanism I must admit.

Unless your wife is disposed to considering TSCC isn't what she's been told it is, I suspect she'll dismiss whatever you show her. Even in the face of hard evidence that (for example) Boyd Packer accrued enormous wealth working only for the LDS church as an educator until he became an apostle, they will offer all kinds of reasons their "stipends" are justified.

That said, do an Internet search on "How much are apostles paid."

Also look up "Apostles Homes"

I no longer regard myself as Christian, but if I were, I'd have a very tough time looking at the supposed apostles of Christ in his time and these guys. "Sell all you have and come follow me..." Not so much.

Yes they do.

In the 1980s I was asked to review the tax returns of some of the GAs. So I have first hand knowledge that they are paid and ir is substantial.

Would a general conference talk by Gordon B Hinkley admitting that the GA's are paid be enough to convince your wife that the GA's are paid?

Per Hinckley"

"I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people." (Remember the "business income" is still income from the church owned businesses)

Of course he won't disclose how much the church pays them, since they probably get paid more than the average member, but rest assured its "very modest in comparison with executive compensation." And its only a "living allowance" not a paycheck.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_finances/No_paid_ministry/General_Authorities_living_stipend

Oh, one suggestion for you, I wouldn't make any claims to Mormons unless you know how to back up the claim with evidence and a citation to the original source.

The FairMormon article is really awful. Anti-mormons making all sorts of wild claims and exaggerations about salaries and compensation (mostly in large even numbers, no less - what???).

Okay, so why don't they just provide the CORRECT INFORMATION? Why not? Is it sacred information?

As a county government worker, the tax payers get to know EXACTLY how much I get paid. Church members should be allowed to know how their donations (tithes) are being spent by their church as well.

On my mission to Europe, I had two companions that were son's to popular GA's at the time. One companion, whose dad was a Q70, said that his dad received 50K per year. This was back in the early 80's. Course would have been equivalent to a 70K per year job minus tax's at that time. Not bad for a Q70 guy in 1980. His dad also had a company car, and many other perks (i.e. free college ed for his kids, vacation retreat, etc). The other companion was a grandson to a well known 1st prez member. He was very tight lipped (I would ask him questions all the time about his GF's salary..(cough)..living allowance). He never said how much, but in normal conversations over 5 months, I got the impression that his grandfather had many luxuries at his disposal - e.g. vacation retreats in Hawaii, Lake Powell, etc., lavish furnishings, multiple homes.

The definition of "stipend" is very open. The use this word because it has has traditionally has a meaning of "small amount of remuneration," but that's not hewn in stone. It can mean anything you want it to. Like it's a stipend when compared to what Bill Gates makes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2015 06:38PM by rationalist01.

Like most wealthy people, there are various sources of income for the GA's. The stipend is only one of many incomes they receive.

Consider that they are all major shareholders of many church-owned corporations. They funnel tax-exempt money from tithe payers and to pay for the broadcasts they send out on a regular basis. Then they receive money from the dividends of the stock they own. Same thing is true of the construction companies they own, and the print/publishing company. They get up on the stand in general conference and tell everyone to read the ensign that the members have to pay for. They then collect on this because they own the stock.

None of them pay for medical or life insurance as they own the companies. Their suits are provided for them from ZCMI (they own that too).

Then there are the CRUT accounts. These are foundations that rich people set up to funnel whatever income they receive as a tax-exempt charity and then they pay out to themselves as administrators of these foundations.

Really the list goes on and on. There are the lunch-ins, the dinners, the housing and security details. Chauffeurs, servants (aides), none of them really need to lift a finger to do anything to maintain their life other than lie twice a year at GC.

Oh, the kids go to school for free.

ZCMI doesn't even exist, and hasn't for over 10 years. It was purchased by May Department Stores, and is now part of Macys.

They get paid a "PARSONAGE" everyone MP and up gets paid. There is a talk by dieter com join with us. OCT 2013 "Because we have no paid LOCAL CLERGY in our worldwide congregations, our members perform the work of ministry themselves."

Consider that "modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions" could still be millions of dollars a year.