www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4800350-155/how-much-do-tohttp://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-web-page-posts-information-about-living-allowance-of-lds-general-authoritiesp-mormon-leaders

That sounds about right to me.

I'm sure once you include things like a car, travel Per diems, whether or not the church buys your house if you have to relocate to Salt Lake, whatever payments are associated with sitting on various boards like BYU or Deseret Industries or whatever, and royalties from book sales, I'm guessing they pay goes up from 120,000. And 120.000 still seems pretty good for people who for the most part spent a good chunk of their life working in high-earning professions.

And I don't believe that a regular General Authority makes as much as the prophet of the church. Hawkins insistence that the pay scale is the same across the board and is not tiered- I have a hard time believing that.

I actually don't think that the apostles and the first presidency are secret billionaires or routinely launder money from the church- at least in the stereotypical white collar crook sense. Its not even what is the most concerning thing about the church and money,to me anyway, it's the lack of financial transparency. The reason that people become suspicious that general authorities and apostles might do incredibly crooked things like that is because instead of knowing something, or alittle bit, they choose to reveal nothing so people are forced to speculate, and the church has no one but themselves to blame if the speculation goes wild.

Another thing that's been bugging me, my parents keep telling me that mission presidents don't get a bi-weekly, or monthly, or yearly living allowance. I'm almost certain that they do, and I'm pretty sure I've seen people say things here that confirm that. I can't see a mission president would be willing to do something like that without at least a basic living allowance- at least a good chunk of them, especially the younger mission presidents.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2017 11:18PM by midwestanon.

See this link

http://www.salamandersociety.com/foyer/salary/

and the link included above:

http://www.mrm.org/mission-president-handbook

from the second link:

"
The manual explicitly states on page 80: “Because you are engaged in volunteer religious service, no employer-employee relationship exists between you and the Church. As a result, any funds reimbursed to you from the Church are not considered income for tax purposes; they are not reported to the government, and taxes are not withheld with regard to these funds.”

"It continues on page 82: “To avoid raising unnecessary tax questions, please follow these guidelines closely: Do not share information on funds you receive from the Church with those who help you with financial or tax matters…. Never represent in any way that you are paid (emphasis mine) for your service. If you are required to file an income-tax report for other purposes, do not list any funds you receive from the Church, regardless of where you serve or where you hold citizenship.” This idea was pointed out earlier in the manual, stating that “the amount of any funds reimbursed to you should be kept strictly confidential.”

"

midwestanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Another thing that's been bugging me, my parents
> keep telling me that mission presidents don't get
> a bi-weekly, or monthly, or yearly living
> allowance. I'm almost certain that they do, and
> I'm pretty sure I seen people say things here that
> have confirm that. They are wrong, aren't they? I
> can't see a mission president would be willing to
> do something like that without at least a basic
> living allowance

A few years back someone posted details from the Mission
Presidents Handbook. It discussed their "living allowance" and
the various perks (which were substantial). It said that MPs
were not to declare the "living allowance" as income.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 02:34AM by steve benson.

So it's pretty much a runaround so MP's don't pay taxes. Hmm. I'd think the IRS would be interested...

Maybe as long as you get reimbursed for spending your own money it's not income. Its not like you can reimburse yourself a rate of interest or capital gains...

I don't believe this for one second.

My close relative was (deceased) an apostle, and he had loads of shares of stocks. I have some Zion's Bank stock (doing very well), Standard Oil/Exxon stock, which has doubled, and Amalgamated Sugar stock (they provide sugar for Pepsi and Coca Cola)--all inherited from my GA relative--and I'm only one of 50 others who inherited. Just from dividends and interest alone, my GA relative could have lived like a multi-millionaire.

He had a limosine and a chauffeur. He had a live-in gardner and cleaning lady. They had a full-time cook. They lived in a mansion, plus three vacation homes. They had a large boat (kitchen, and slept 12) in California, a large boat on the Great Salt Lake, and three other boats at their cabins, plus extra cars there, and ORV's. They traveled first class all over the world, and stayed in the nicest hotels, and ate at the finest restaurants.

He had other sources of income--more than we knew about. He got paid to be on the Board of Directors for several companies. I know he was on the Board of Directors for BYU, of course, and on the Board at Zion's Bank, Deseret Publishing, the broadcasting company that owns KSL (Bonneville?) and the old ZCMI. But there were other family companies privately owned by Mormons--I won't mention their names.

General Authorities have other paying jobs, within the church, and around the church.

Ha-ha-Ha-ha-ha! Who's going to believe those low "base salaries?" We aren't stupid.

that really does sound like a multi-millionaire, not upper middle class.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 10:32AM by liesarenotuseful.

Thanks for sharing this. Eyring's check is only $15,000 more than mine. But I think I have to work harder, lol!

But what I don't get is why the presiding bishop makes more than the apostle? what's up with that? anyone know?

never mind, I get it, Eyrings paycheck was from 2000 whereas the 70's are from 2014. now it makes sense

The Presiding Bishop manages much of the business side of LDS, Inc., so it kind of makes sense to me.

I agree with the sentiment in the comments of others in a few areas, and would add the following thoughts:

1) Why can't they just be transparent about all this upfront? If the salary is all they get and it's limited to about 100k--that's defensible (all other things being equal). But salary is so little of what executives get these days (think stock, stock options, perks etc.) that I'd be cautious about taking any number at face value.

And as we see in my following points, things are not equal in the broader sense.

2) They ask the members to pay their own way all the time for missions, give their free time for callings, etc., and even some people work in paid positions for less than they are worth for the cause.

3) Who decided this? Did the membership ever vote on it? Was it proposed as part of an election for the leadership of the church? Nope! We were just trained to raise that right hand and not ask questions (unless we knew the person has a zipper problem).

Many churches compensate leaders in order to have well-trained people in charge of the church's business, communication approach, doctrine, outreach activity etc. Okay, but often the membership has ultimate control--not the leaders themselves.

4) If they are taking this kind of salary, is it really ethical to put the hard squeeze on a poor family to pay their 10%, or else, in order to get the money? This is still part of the temple recommend interview, so they are putting a poor person's salvation on the line to pay their bills--that ain't right!

I guess my bottom line beef is: What made you so special? There are lots of rank & file members giving up a great deal of time and money because they believe in this stuff. They don't ask for, and certainly don't receive much, if anything, in return (except chastisement and condemnation from their leaders).

People can argue whether the salaries, er, uh, living allowances, are appropriate but the advertising pitch is that the leaders of the so-called church are unpaid. Just last one someone shared some sap from TSCC on FB with that item listed as an amazing fact about Mormons. Here that has been known to be a lie, but good to see the lie getting out in the Utah media.

Of course LDS, Inc is claiming funds come from their business interests not tithing, once again ignoring the obvious fact that money is fungible and that same money could be spent helping members, or at least not forcing them be volunteer janitors.

numbersRus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People can argue whether the salaries, er, uh,
> living allowances, are appropriate but the
> advertising pitch is that the leaders of the
> so-called church are unpaid. Just last one someone
> shared some sap from TSCC on FB with that item
> listed as an amazing fact about Mormons. Here
> that has been known to be a lie, but good to see
> the lie getting out in the Utah media.
>
> Of course LDS, Inc is claiming funds come from
> their business interests not tithing, once again
> ignoring the obvious fact that money is fungible
> and that same money could be spent helping
> members, or at least not forcing them be volunteer
> janitors.

Exactly. Regardless of whether these stipends come from tithing IT IS STILL CHURCH MONEY. Low income janitors got fired from the employ of the church but the top leaders got an INCREASE in their SIX FIGURE "living allowance." Shows you where their priorities are! Jesus told the original apostles to leave their families and go without purse or scrip. The modern day apostles get a purse of $100k.

This could be a modified limited hang-out, orchestrated by TSCC. Float reasonable sounding numbers through the leaks website in order to set that as people's expectations. It could be much higher than that in reality.

Either way, 120,000 hardly fits the perception most Mormons have of a "stipend". The very word is used to suggest an extremely modest, meagre pension-like sum. I do not believe either that lower GAs such as the one mentioned get the same amount as the upper echelon in the twelve.

I publicly confronted a preacher on my mission that was talking to MY. Investigator and acused him quite dramatically that he was a servant of Lucifer because he made money off the gospel, I then quoted a few scriptures that condemn the practice. He smiled and told me "Mormon leaders make 10 times what I make and I disclose every penny to my followers" I knew he was lying because Mormon apostles don't get paid.

Enough to make lying worthwhile

Can anyone repost the link?