Something has always puzzled me when it comes to the "paid clergy" subject.

https://www.quora.com/Do-Mormons-realize-they-preach-no-paid-ministers-but-the-top-100-+-get-paid-large-corporate-salaries

Hinckley (a so-called prophet) actually substantiated the lie that non-prophets compare with profits. They don't. A religious leader isn't the head of a corporation for profit.

As I see it the argument is having a paid clergy or not. In The Book of Mormon, those "prophets" "worked with our own hands" and only got paid for their time on "the judgement seat." IT is very clear. Mormonism is condemned by its own truest book and Mormons will do mental hola hoops to prevent their cog dis from slaying their cureloms and cummins.

In the old days it was quite simple. Only about 30 were paid and most of their pay came from sitting on boards for various church owned businesses.

Hence no they are not "paid" to be apostles but yes they are paid to be a member of the board for ZCMI or Deseret book etc.

They used to get income from book royalties too.

Not sure when that changed.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure when that changed.

The early part of the 20th Century?


"In reaction to hostile critics, the First Presidency issued this formal statement in 1907: "The charge that the Church is a commercial rather than a religious institution; that its aims are temporal rather than religious; that it dictates its members in their industrial activities and relations, and aims at absolute domination in temporal affairs,�all this we emphatically deny."5 The difficulty with such a denial is that LDS leaders were stating criticisms of their church in the categories and assumptions of non-Mormons, but answering them in the categories and assumptions of Mormonism....


Almost from the beginning, the business of the LDS church has been business. Established in March 1832, the same month Joseph Smith organized the First Presidency, the church's "United Firm" included merchandizing, real estate, and publishing.108 In 1841 Joseph Smith printed a revelation to establish a church hotel (D&C 124:59). In 1870 Brigham Young publicly announced a revelation for Mormons to invest in a railroad.109 In 1881 John Taylor privately dictated a revelation to organize an iron company, and in 1883 another revelation to invest tithing funds in a gold mine.110 In the 1890s the hierarchy gave certain men the religious "calling" or obligation to invest thousands of dollars each in a sugar company.111

During the first century of corporate Mormonism, current general authorities were partners, officers, or directors in nearly 900 businesses. Most, but not all, of these were church-owned, church-controlled, or church-invested businesses.112 However, a hierarchy-managed business has not necessarily been church-owned, -controlled, or -invested. Also, general authorities have sometimes been absent from the board of companies owned or controlled by the LDS church. Furthermore, some directorships have been honorary and lacked significant influence on the company.

Nevertheless, during the first third of the twentieth century it was possible for Latter-day Saints in and near Salt Lake City to have a cradle-to-grave economic association with businesses managed by LDS general authorities. Many of these businesses were owned or controlled by the LDS church itself."
https://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon392.htm

In the late 1960's it was rumored the twelve apostles received salaries in the area of $60,000 each. David O. McKay bought each of the 12 a brand new Cadillac to show his support for his executive crew. That's been 50 years ago already.

A CEO today of a not-for-profit earns an average of between $400,000 to $800,000 and more (that's a modest salary by CEO standards.) When you add in the perks, bonuses, and stock portfolios it easily can add up to much more.

$60,000 in 1960 is equivalent in purchasing power to $486,500.68 in 2016...

Damn mathematicians. You can't sneak anything by them!

That is on par with what CEO's of not-for-profits make (on average) today. It varies widely depending on who, what, and where. Suffice to say because of the zero transparency of church finances as to how much the GA actually earns, it could be in the high ballpark, and no one is the wiser except for them (tithe free to boot!)

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is on par with what CEO's of not-for-profits make (on average) today. It varies widely depending on who, what, and where. Suffice to say because of the zero transparency of church finances as to how much the GA actually earns, it could be in the high ballpark, and no one is the wiser except for them (tithe free to boot!)

I agree. I believe that church leaders receive more (cash) than what has been discovered. As far as the "tithe free" thing though, Eyring's pay stubs indicate he designates for tithing.

ETA: nothing



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 03:38AM by Lot's Wife.

The big 15 make most of their money by being on the board of directors of mormon church owned corporations.

Not for the last 20+ years -

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

I would love to receive one of their "modest stipends"! ;)

Imagine if you are handed the deed to a City Creek Condo, have all your travel and "work" expenses paid for. The "stipend" probably just goes into their bank accounts.

But the point of this post is apples and oranges. The comparison to a for profit exec is apples to the oranges of being a religious leader.

When I was growing up in the church, I was taught that the church leaders received NOTHING for their service. I was told that they were all wealthy retired businessmen who were living off of their earnings. That later evolved into them being paid a “modest stipend” (but definitely NO salary) which has further evolved now into the discovery of them actually receiving pay checks.

With MormonLeaks uncovering Eyring’s pay stubs a while back, the myth of “no paid clergy” or “modest stipend” came crashing down. The stubs revealed that the church hierarchy receives $120,000 per year. The “spirit” is giving me a “burning in my boob” that this figure is low and is not all of the cash they receive…just what has been discovered. Then of course once you factor in things like insurance, housing stipend, free travel, etc., the whole figure is much higher.

I have NO PROBLEM with church leaders being paid. I do have a problem with being taught that they aren’t paid, that there is no paid clergy, and the lack of transparency. I believe that the majority of the members still believe that their leaders are paid a “modest stipend”, and I am sure they would be totally blown away by how much that “stipend” is per month On top of that, they wouldn’t believe it and chalk it up to more “anti-Mormon lies”. And of course, the leadership would never set them straight.

I have heard that Packer and Monson died fairly wealthy men. Their entire adult lives were spent “in service” (employed) to the church. Go figure. Again, I’m fine with that, good for them. Just don’t bullshit me about how they acquired their wealth.

I agree. Its always bothered me more that they lie than about the stuff they are lying about.

Twisted isn't it?

Hopefully, more leaks will becoming forward.

For some 40 years or more, it was taught and reinforced at church that the Lord's servants traveled via coach on airplanes. It was spun that they were meek individuals that tried to spare the expense of the church. (Just as I was rebuked for wasting church paper when the church's clerk computer needed to do a printer calibration. I was told to keep a used sheet of paper in a drawer for such situations). Then it was finally leaked that all of them have been flying first-class the entire time.

messygoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully, more leaks will becoming forward.

I hope so. I would like to see what is immodest in the benefits they derive from being church shills.

“Then it was finally leaked that all of them have been flying first-class the entire time.”

Although a first class seat has a larger carbon footprint, even the largest jet engine can’t compete with a GA for hot air generation.

They should take hot air balloons. Much cheaper.

I've listened to this argument for years now. What everyone is missing is the generational accumulation of wealth the system enables for them. For the rest
of us, if we're frugal and save for forty years at retirement we will have say$1.5 million socked away. But that is the end of the growth. We either live on some combination of interest and principle or at best just the interest.

Either way the principle stops growing. The big shots receive the "stipend" until they die, enabling them to continue to grow that wealth.

Assume $1.5 million in Rusty's account thirty years ago at normal retirement age and then calculate what it is now compounded for that period.

That little stipend has grown to somewhere north of twenty five million.

It's good to be king

Someonewhoknows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's good to be king

Yep, and have the US Government pay for your wine thief's transportation and hotel.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/assistant-who-stole-dollar1m-in-wine-from-goldman-sachs-exec-jumps-to-death/ar-BBOaMvM

Most people with 1 million dollars in wine would be selling it, not drinking it.

Comparing the Mormon (love using this word even more) Prophet to a more profit financial king is ridiculous. The one takes more money the other Mormon souls.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 07:28AM by Elder Berry.

It's a great retirement gig. The non-cash benefits of housing, travel, medical, meals, insurance, senior-living, tuition for dependents, is amazing. Nearly everything they do is somehow a covered expense or reimbursed, so the cash income can be invested and used for luxuries. Most will end-up in the long-term senior care. There is no burden on their families and drain on the estate. Much of this flows to them free of taxes. I suspect the total value is well over a million a year.

The church business, forget the name, most likely handles their estate trusts, wills, etc and all of it is shielded and most things are not in their name but in a trust.

I think there's a legal firm that handles their business. I think it's the Shadee and Krux team.

He neglected the part about how nobody can hold any of the top Mormon leaders accountable for mismanagement. Nobody can fire them for bad investments.

If they want to, they can cancel meetings, trips and other commitments at will.

They have less transparency and oversight than CEOs of publicly traded companies.

They can arrange for lucrative church contracts to go to friends, relatives and people who are "generous" to them.

They can ride around on private jets (think Hinckley, but I'm sure it happens all the time) made available to them by wealthy Mormon businessmen (who probably get something in return and, at a minimum, can write it off as a deductible donation).

There are probably a lot of Church properties around the world that the members know nothing about. Accommodations at church-owned properties and universities in places like Hawaii? Probably. Do they get good deals at Marriott hotels? Wouldn't be surprised.

Job security. Great healthcare plan. Power. Influence. Adulation. Expense accounts. Travel. Little to no accountability.

It's always ridiculous to hear them try to persuade people that it's some kind of sacrifice to be in the positions that they're in, when we know that they always craved and strived for those positions. Nobody falls into one of those positions. The politicking, the clamoring for attention from higher-ups, the grandstanding...that each and every one of them did to get there is obvious to anyone who pays close attention.

You never see a case where, for example, some obscure person living on a ranch in Montana is called to a position of spiritual leadership in the church due to being humble, wise, thoughtful and immune to the temptations of mammon. Nope, it's always ladder-climbing, ambitious organization men who are called. People who love being called "leader." People obsessed with rank, status and hierarchy.

Well said!

They are recruited into certain positions. And they are tracked for many years by the same software that I think John Dehlin help create for that purpose OR at least added developed modules to it.

I would love to trade my modest teacher's salary for their modest "stipend."

At least you influence lives for the better.

The MORmON church scam has ALWAYS been a financial bonanza for MORmON elite insiders at the very top who were set up as top MORmON leaders. In the early days of MORmONISM that Insider bonanza also included (plucking available vulnerable teen age MORmON girls) superfluous sexual gratification.

MORmON leadership is just like acting, Most actors are amateurs that do NOT get paid, most MORmON leadership does not get paid just like most actors, so LD$ Inc just rolls with the gross over generalization that MORmON leaders are not paid, giving a false impression ( false impressions being a MORmON specialty) however top actors are some of highest paid people ever. LD$ Inc does NOT want to talk about that aspect of their compensation deal for top leaders.

In the old days, Bishops and stake Presidents got an out right cut of the tithing that they managed to collect. LD$ Inc does not want to talk about that old arrangement either.

Top LDS Leaders have all of their personal needs and living accommodations provided for them. SO, to call any monetary compensation given to them a "living compensation" is just another damned MORmON lie.

Since all of their basic needs like shelter, food, clothing, transportation and utilities are already provided, any actual money that is given to an LD$ inc MORmON general authority is actually just some "Pocket money" for them much more than anything else. Their kid's college tuition at BYU is also covered if they want it.

They are ultimate phonies!!!! IN the mean time, STUPID average run of the mill MORmON members ( like my parents) are sucked dry financially by the disgusting VIPERS that run LD$ inc.

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are ultimate phonies!!!! IN the mean time,
> STUPID average run of the mill MORmON members (
> like my parents) are sucked dry financially by
> the disgusting VIPERS that run LD$ inc.

Yes, it is a travesty. Mormons tend towards the middle classes. They funnel 10 percent of their incomes to people who if not raised middle class are very comfortable in it. These leaders do just like The Book of Mormon warned - they live off the backs of their followers. The temple is just the ostensible "sign" that the leaders need so much money.

It doesn't do to compare LDS Leader living allowances and corporate god's excessive incomes. Doesn't compute. Doesn't matter. The "modest" GAs are not modest and many stories abound on how much more superior they feel in their religious upper middle class lives.

...Mission President's Handbook........Appendix B....page 80.

First rung in the hierarchical "pay to pray" ladder............

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/0/03/Mission_Presidents_Handbook_2006.pdf

Wow! Thoughts and prayers with benefits. But it makes sense. Their first rung is a revenue stream.

Since the Mission Presidents don't receive a salary (or "modest stipend"), anything the church DOES provide for them seems reasonable. By providing the Mission President limited REIMBURSEMENT of his out of pocket expenses, it appears as if the church is trying to make serving as an MP a "break even" venture. Additional MP perks provided by the church fall in line with those of a low-level corporate executive in the work world who DOES receive a salary as well. Far from luxurious, and seems fair for a volunteer who gives up a few years of his life to babysit a bunch of kids.

Jaxson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Far
> from luxurious, and seems fair for a volunteer who
> gives up a few years of his life to babysit a
> bunch of kids.

My mission president lived in luxury I have yet to achieve and his wife had their million dollar home completely renovated their first year there.

They were a doctor/nurse couple so maybe it is what they required. But it doesn't matter anymore than the comparison to an exec. It isn't the same thing. The entitlement from church funds is a buzz kill for something living in a shitty apt trying to get people to listen to them.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My mission president lived in luxury I have yet to achieve and his wife had their million dollar home completely renovated their first year there.

Was it THEIR own home or were they staying in a home purchased and owned by the church designated for their use?

> The entitlement from church funds is a buzz kill for something living in a shitty apt trying to get people to listen to them.

I agree. My son lived in a dump on his mission. He always had the option to come home but chose not to. So there must have been something there that appealed to him.

I have always felt that if a visiting G.A. wouldn't stay in a missionary's apartment, neither should the missionary. I don't make the rules though...and the missionaries don't HAVE to stay.

"Was it THEIR own home or were they staying in a home purchased and owned by the church designated for their use?"

The latter-day saint's.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Was it THEIR own home or were they staying in a home purchased and owned by the church designated for their use?"
>
> The latter-day saint's.

That's what I thought. And the MP should turn down living in a nice home that had been designated for him and where he was told to live because.....?????

Like I said, regardless of his digs, three years babysitting a bunch of teenagers is far from a luxurious lifestyle. I certainly wouldn't trade my life (and I am prime MP age) for it...even if I were a TBM.

Jaxson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what I thought. And the MP should turn
> down living in a nice home that had been
> designated for him and where he was told to live
> because.....?????

Hmm. I was with the first pres for a month. The house looked great. New guy comes and redoes the oval office? I was told by a missionary friend that the previous occupants had done a lot of work that the new guy walled up.

The house was a mansion. The new guy walled up the wine cellar that the old guy had made into more living space. It was huge for a family of three people.

> Like I said, regardless of his digs, three years
> babysitting a bunch of teenagers is far from a
> luxurious lifestyle. I certainly wouldn't trade
> my life (and I am prime MP age) for it...even if I
> were a TBM.

It was luxurious regardless of your thoughts on the matter. The office elders were their servants. They took extensive vacations in my mission which was a vacation destination. The pres preached about how missionaries shouldn't have their families come and vacation there because they were still missionaries yet he and his family stayed at the nicest hotels and ate well. My office elder friend processed the receipts.

Good God, his babysitting was having his lackey APs do everything.

I wanted to add that when gas came they painted the town red with trips and fun things to do all on the lords tab.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2018 07:04PM by Elder Berry.

Jaxson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always felt that if a visiting G.A.
> wouldn't stay in a missionary's apartment, neither
> should the missionary. I don't make the rules
> though...and the missionaries don't HAVE to stay.

Jesus would have stayed with his disciples/missionaries methinks.

Some very interesting past threads and websites on the subject:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150207222425/http://www.mormonthink.com/grant9.htm

http://www.mormonthink.com/tithing.htm#salary

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,444029,444296#msg-444296

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,957774,957774#msg-957774

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,444370,444370#msg-444370

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1410914,1410914#msg-1410914

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1126959,1126959#msg-1126959

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1045527,1045527#msg-1045527

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,957774,958226#msg-958226

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1044546,1044546#msg-1044546

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1685471,1685981#msg-1685981

The mormonthink salary link was great thanks!

Hinckley said this.

"The church is undertaking a huge development project in the interest of protecting the environment of Temple Square. While the costs will be great, it will not involve the expenditure of tithing funds."


Look what "protecting the environment" means to LDS Corp. It means keeping gay people out of their Mecca.

Wow. Even if they were given "modest living allowances" what they do with church monies (derived from investment or not) is appalling. God wanted billions spent "protecting the environment" of a small part of a city. I guess there is a revelation there - Zion is SLC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2018 01:23PM by Elder Berry.

...reading the Appendix B, it would seem this is most relevant.

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. Any exceptions should be discussed with the Church Tax
Division.
• Never represent in any way that you are paid 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.
Because selling or renting your home can create significant tax issues, seek assistance from a
tax expert.
If you have any questions about tax matters, contact the Church Tax Division, which has tax
rulings and research that support the validity of not reporting as income the funds you receive
as mission president. Because most tax advisers are not aware of this information, their advice
may be incorreTo 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. Any exceptions should be discussed with the Church Tax
Division.
• Never represent in any way that you are paid 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.
Because selling or renting your home can create significant tax issues, seek assistance from a
tax expert.
If you have any questions about tax matters, contact the Church Tax Division, which has tax
rulings and research that support the validity of not reporting as income the funds you receive
as mission president. Because most tax advisers are not aware of this information, their advice
may be incorrect.

...in other words, "Don't get us in the middle of an IRS investigation, damnit!!".

Concerned Citizen 2.0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...reading the Appendix B, it would seem this is most relevant.
>
> Blah, blah, blah...yawn.


Interesting that you didn't include the first paragraph of the section you quoted. What are YOU trying to hide?? Here it is -

"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."


> ...in other words, "Don't get us in the middle of an IRS investigation, damnit!!".

Actually, as the handbook states - "...any funds reimbursed to you from the Church are not considered income for tax purposes...". So, in other words, "Don't report your reimbursed funds as income (because it isn't) to the IRS and subject YOURSELF to an audit/investigation, gosh darn it!!" Anyone who has been audited by the IRS would know this is great advice.

The tax angle seems extremely sketchy to me, especially, "Do not share information on funds you receive from the Church with those who help you with financial or tax matters." So the church is saying do not share this information with your CPA? Is that because any CPA in their right mind would refuse to sign off on it?

And let's assume that the IRS would approve of a "modest stipend" for mission presidents. Would the IRS also sign off on free college tuition for the MP's dependents? How about gifts for family members? I seem to recall that these two items are either reimbursed or provided gratis. I'm sure there are more examples, but those are the two that spring to mind.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The tax angle seems extremely sketchy to me, especially, "Do not share information on funds you receive from the Church with those who help you with financial or tax matters." So the church is saying do not share this information with your CPA? Is that because any CPA in their right mind would refuse to sign off on it?

Since any funds received from the church are reimbursements and not income, what would be the need of passing that info along to a CPA? Personally, I only share with my CPA pertinent info regarding my income. I see this more as a “heads up” from the church to not pass along info that could be construed and reported to the IRS as income when it in fact is not.

> And let's assume that the IRS would approve of a "modest stipend" for mission presidents. Would the IRS also sign off on free college tuition for the MP's dependents? How about gifts for family members? I seem to recall that these two items are either reimbursed or provided gratis. I'm sure there are more examples, but those are the two that spring to mind.

I believe the gifts are reimbursed. As far as the college tuition, I’m not sure how the IRS views that. My guess though is that the church’s legal/tax team has gone over the IRS regulations on that with a fine toothed comb in order to be in compliance. How many MP’s have you heard of being arrested for tax evasion concerning their kid's free ride to BYU?

Yes, this is most excellent tax advice. I also do not disclose my set of gold plates because they're only for religious purposes.

Your loss. If your plates are "only for religious purposes", a good CPA could probably find a nice write-off for you. LOL!!!

I personally think that a good CPA could read the relevant court decisions and make the call.

I just googled how Peace Corps volunteers are advised to handle their allowances. Some are taxable and some are not.

"Your readjustment allowance and a portion of your monthly in-country living allowance are considered taxable income and W-2 forms will be sent to you in-country...Consult a tax adviser for additional information."

https://www.peacecorps.gov/faqs/finance/

The IRS states, "Are you a volunteer? If so, you should be aware that income or reimbursements you receive for volunteering — such as stipends, education awards, bonuses and allowances — may be considered taxable income."

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/oc_aug_volunteers_pay_taxes_072911_02.pdf

My guess is that some reimbursements for MPs are legitimately tax free, and some may not be.

...that is not the point here. The fact is that the tax and IRS complications for the Church indicate that some tax avoidance strategies were needed. Mission Presidents, as well as other high-ranking Authorities are counseled to get their tax situations arranged as to avoid the appearances of wages vs. compensation vs. reimbursements. Obviously, Church tax attorneys have previously been busy with these issues. Not something a religious body would normally have at the forefront....you would think.........or hope. You go to a church for religious needs, and hope not be concerned with their particular tax-avoidance strategies........IMO.

But if you are a very rich corp, this would be very important.

Where is this “tax avoidance”?? There is no income to be taxed. Please point out what legitimate tax MP's are avoiding.

Apparently the issue is that MP’s have mistakenly reported their reimbursements as income on their taxes. It is not income, is an error to report it as such, and presents an UNNECESSARY problem for the MP’s when it comes to dealing with the IRS in correcting it. It’s no problem for the church, and nothing hidden on their end. Their advice is to, “Don’t do that or you will create problems for yourself.” Having had issues myself with the IRS in the past, that sounds like pretty good advice to me.

The only thing hidden here appears to be your agenda in trying to create an issue where none exists. See that all the time with ex-mos. Keep working on that recovery.

I'm no attorney, tax lawyer, or accountant but there might be taxable things for MPs. To blanket avoid these seems bad advice to me and like hiding in a tax shelter.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm no attorney, tax lawyer, or accountant but there might be taxable things for MPs. To blanket avoid these seems bad advice to me and like hiding in a tax shelter.

From the handbook -

"If you have any questions about tax matters, contact the Church Tax Division, which has tax rulings and research that support the validity of not reporting as income the funds you receive as mission president. Because most tax advisers are not aware of this information, their advice may be incorrect."

Sooooooo, you think the advice to contact the Church Tax Division, who has knowledge and experience in these matters over most tax advisors, is not good advice but instead "blanket avoidance"? Really??

"If"

Hmm, messing with what's a reimbursement, what's an expense and what's income can get you in trouble with the IRS.

Jim Bakker had trouble keeping those straight.

A $120,000 would put them in the range of, well, in the range.


https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_(CEO)/Salary

Those poor underpaid execs, er, I mean prophets.

Great comment on a panegyric about apostles.

"I feel like your first paragraph is a bit misleading. If someone didn't know already, they would be left with the impression that general authorities left a paying job for a non-paying job - which is not the case. Those that were less wealthy may actually be better off for having accepted the calling thanks to their stipend and generous reimbursements."
https://www.thepeculiarppl.com/business-tech/2017/8/21/12-apostles-previous-occupations

CEO's of not-for-profits on average make upwards of $1,000,000 a year, plus perks.

And those are the ones with *transparency.*

The GA's value themselves as well as any CEO, because that is their background, education & experience prior to becoming GA's.

They're raking it in. Because what they're paid is shrouded in secrecy, actually makes it more offensive than acceptable.

I remember the Bible story of Jesus sending his 12 apostles out to the world without purse or scrip. I suppose if the Mormon GAs want to call themselves CEOs of a non-profit they might be able to justify their pay, but I never could see them getting paid with church money for being living apostles of Jesus Christ. That is just how I see it.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Something has always puzzled me when it comes to
> the "paid clergy" subject.
>
> https://www.quora.com/Do-Mormons-realize-they-prea
> ch-no-paid-ministers-but-the-top-100-+-get-paid-la
> rge-corporate-salaries
>
> Hinckley (a so-called prophet) actually
> substantiated the lie that non-prophets compare
> with profits. They don't. A religious leader isn't
> the head of a corporation for profit.
>
> As I see it the argument is having a paid clergy
> or not. In The Book of Mormon, those "prophets"
> "worked with our own hands" and only got paid for
> their time on "the judgement seat." IT is very
> clear. Mormonism is condemned by its own truest
> book and Mormons will do mental hola hoops to
> prevent their cog dis from slaying their cureloms
> and cummins.

RIGHT!!! And I just taught my cat to fly!!