I was just doing some quick calculations on how much missionaries cost the church for year, compared to estimated church income, to see how reasonable it is not that missionaries have to pay for their own mission.

Let's assume that missionaries cost between $300-600 each a month. They usually share apartments, so on average that should give them a small apartment and 20-40$ a week in food.
"Oct 9, 2012 – In 2012, the number of Mormon missionaries serving was 58990" -> www.mormonmissionprep.com

So, 12 months times $300-600 times 58990 = $212-424 million

Now, yearly church income:

"Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing, analysis indicates" -> http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/13/13262285-mormon-church-earns-7-billion-a-year-from-tithing-analysis-indicates?lite

Is it really too much to ask for the church to take 200-400 miliion out of its annual budget and pay for its missionaries living expenses? The ward buildings can't be THAT much in maintenance. Why do mission presidents get untaxed living expenses paid for but not the missionaries? Where's all those billions of dollars going? To a mall in Utah, and a fancy hotel in Hawaii, apparently.

Not only that, but I've seen signs in the last ten years that indicate they're trying to skimp on the missionary fund. There might be some corruption in the way in recent years they're having parents pay the church, and then the church pays the missionaries, where it used to be the missionaries got the money from their parents directly. I think the church might not be giving the missionaries enough money. A few years ago, my mom gave a few missionaries a bag of oats because they looked so hungry. Also, the church has been pressuring families to give missionaries dinners every night, and to have missionaries stay in their homes for several months. Didn't their parents already have to pay their monthly missionary fee? I think this is a scamming way to get the parents to pay for more than one missionary, so poor missionaries in other countries can go but then all missionaries get living expenses skimped on.

This is just like the church of Scientology, where David Miscavage lives in a luxurious resort home, but then the members themselves get very little in return for their money. If the source in Grant Palmers article (http://mormonthink.com/grant9.htm) was correct about apostles getting $1 million dollars each when they start, that's a clue on where all those billions are going - to pay tax-exempt benefits and living expenses of the rich upper hierarchy. There's always so much corruption where there's no accountability in a system.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 05:02PM by raiku.

My brother was on a mission when I left TSCC, and this was one of the first issues that got me really angry with the church. Why the hell are missionaries expected to pay their own way to volunteer for an organization that already gets 10% of their lifetime income? Absolutely astounding that they continue to get away with this sh!t.

I agree! I left the church 20 years ago, when I was only making about $30,000 a year. What other church would charge a young woman $3,000 a year to be considered a worthy member?!

A cult.

In my state the median household income is $72,000. Could you imagine those families dropping $138 into a church's collection plate each Sunday? It wouldn't happen!

What other church would collect from a teenager 10% of her babysitting money (college fund)? That makes me insanely angry as an adult. They take money from KIDS. BYU should be free, no tuition for members.

Also, I was just wondering, what does someone who "looks hungry" look like? What does a hungry 20-year-old guy look like? Couldn't "hungry" be mistaken for "horny"? No?

Apparently the cojcolds doesn't believe in paying their employees (i.e., missionaries). But can you blame them? Once the money's gone the church is dead. Finished, like the Roman Empire. A few relics, documents, ruins.

They're in survival mode. As long as the members continue to hand over the money, they'll gladly take it.

Why should the church pay for the missionaries? Especially when they can get them to pay for it themselves.

You need to think in terms of what the purpose of a mission really is. It's the old problem where people don't really know what a business is in what business. (For example Xerox isn't a copier company, they are a toner company, any copiers they sell is to get people to buy their toner, if they make money on the copiers, so much the better)

So, the "missionary" arm of the church isn't to get more members, nor is it what most non-mormon's would think of as missionary work. It's to brainwash thousands of young people into being life long tithing payers. So, they isolate missionaries from their families as soon as they legally can without looking suspicious (even lowering the age recently to get them straight out of high school), they make their entire lives revolve around the church, they keep them at poverty level and reliant on the mission pres (the church for everything, money, food, lodging, etc.). Making the missionaries pay their own way reinforces the "everything to the church" training, and gets them used to the idea of giving money to the church.

If the church paid for missionaries to go on a mission, then young people might look at it like a 2 year paid vacation. By forcing a member and his/her family to pay for it, they "buy into" the idea and will be more likely to accept the brainwashing.

Any converts they find is icing on the cake, but it's not the primary mission of the missionary force.

The greater the personal sacrifice the deeper the commitment. Add this to the same idealism that draws military recruits and suicide bombers that same age, and the corporation hooks its most resource - a fully committed worker/customer.

JoD3:360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The greater the personal sacrifice the deeper the
> commitment. Add this to the same idealism that
> draws military recruits and suicide bombers that
> same age, and the corporation hooks its most
> resource - a fully committed worker/customer.


+1000

I think you've got it. Distilled perfectly.

The church makes money on the missionaries, so they'll never stop handling it this way. That's all this organization is about - making money, no matter what it takes. They'll sacrifice anyone and everyone to get more money, period.

To instill a culture of subservience and obedience to a greater power...not "God" in this case....

Ron Burr

It's even worse than that.

The church now takes the money from the parents and gives that child whatever they feel like giving them.

So a mother may be working and paying $500-600 dollars a month for her missionary, who may be living with a member in a ghetto in rat-infested Bolivia, using a bucket for a toilet. The church gives those missionaries a ridiculously sparse food allowance and then drags their heels when it comes to providing medical attention.

THEY ARE MAKING A PROFIT ON MISSIONARIES --as they do on everything. That is why they are asking the members to take the missionaries in. This happened right after they began collecting the missionary donations into a "common pot" allegedly to help the less fortunate missionaries, but in fact, reducing the standard of living of all the missionaries (except Royals, of course) and then keeping the difference.

Wouldn't it be nice if their seventeen issues included a response to the charges of missionary abuse?

Anagrammy

Hmmm, pay missionaries hundreds of millions, or keep that money for ourselves? Hard choice.

The church is, I believe, currently asking $400/month for missionaries. Somebody with kids in the field can pipe in and correct me if I'm wrong.

There have been some pretty massive cutbacks lately, though. Members are now being offered $75/month if they can give a room to the missionaries. The church used to just rent apartments at market rate (generally about $400-$600/month in the US depending on geography), but now is not even shelling that much out.

Having somebody go on a mission makes it all the harder for that individual to leave. It's part of the sunk cost fallacy -- rm's will be lead to ask, "Did I really spend two years shopping a lie?" The potential answers are either yes -- with all the discomfort and guilt and pain with the realization that that's two years you're not going to get back -- or no -- and thus the rm is retained.

The church maintains the missionary program because it is dirt cheap. Other than the MP and his office, they pay nothing for all that labor. People pay to work for them. That's better than slavery, where you have to feed, cloth and house them at your expense.

If the church had to pay for the missionaries, then they would realize all those costs and their ROI would be deeply negative.

Let the members absorb the costs while they gain the benefits of new tithe payers. Every baptism costs them almost nothing.

F.Y.I.

The apostole Paul provided for his own upkeep by practicing his profession, making tents. Hence, the term "tentmaker" (missionary), common among Christian denominations. He also accepted love offerings from other churches. Thus, many, perhaps most Christian missionaries will be supported by either their denomination or a combination of independent churches.

But then, Paul ("the Great Apostle") was an authentic saint. Not a "latter-day" one.

thank you for saying that! You reminded me of a very poor family that the missionaries in our branch were teaching. East coast, blizzard of '93, the family's roof had collapsed under the weight of the ice and snow. They really needed help, but the missionaries couldn't help them pick through what was left of their house because it wasn't P-day and they weren't supposed to work in their uniforms.
Those poor guys tried to get members to help. Some were willing to make food, but most weren't willing to do any more than that. None were willing to house them, even for a night or two. That's what got to my mother. If we weren't ourselves so poor that we slept four to a room, she would have kicked open the doors for them and done her best to feed them on nothing, too. It always infuriated her that so many members would feign concern and compassion, but when it came down to it, did nothing. One of the missionary's parents paid for a hotel room for the family. It was truly pathetic.
Needless to say, they did not join the church.

But they would have helped if it had been on the news. And, they'd be wearing yellow vests emblazoned with "Mormon", so that the world would know exactly just who was being of service.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2013 12:12PM by healyourpast.

Curt Schilling, the now-retired pitching ace, is a born-again Christian. When Katrina hit New Orleans, he located a homeless family and put them up on his large, comfy estate in Massachusetts.

For a year.

"If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2.15-17)

...the church needs to keep a legal wall of separation between the ChurchCo and missionaries. With missionaries being self-paid volunteers instead of church employees, it becomes harder to hold the church legally accountable for any crap missionaries my cause or get themselves into. Also, since they're not employees, the church doesn't need to comply with labor laws in the countries where they station missionaries.

Because the CULT is tight as a frog's arse.

and because a bunch of crooked old men have become accustomed to a certain lifestyle.

My daughter is going on a week long "mission trip" in conjunction with our (Catholic) church. The cost is $350 for one week. They had to do their own fund raising, and we owe the last $100 per person that they didn't raise.

They are going about 4 hours away to a town on the other side of the state.

Now let me tell ya about this scam...

The kids have to supply their own single bed sized air mattress (of course we have a bigger one that she isn't allowed to take) sheets, blankets and pillows. (sleeping on floor of college class rooms)

The have to take their own towels, soap, shampoo and all stuff like that with them. (showering in college locker room)

They are fed three meals a day, but have to take their own snacks, which have to be kept in bins in a common room. they have to provide their own water for their work days.

The week will be filled with getting up at six am to have breakfast, mass and head out to work in the community...babysitting at the child care center, painting at senior citizen centers, cleaning the parks (which is all good) but WE have to supply everything but the paint basicly. We have a list of what they have to bring, that gets turned in when they arrive...paint brushes, rollers, drop clothes, scrapers, etc.

They have lunch in the field, and return at supper time to shower and have mass or revival type stuff in the evening.

Again..this is costing each child $350 for the week! They have one free day where they are taking them to an amusement park..but we also had to pay for that ticket and give them spending money and meal money for that day.

Nice scam for that area. With 10 kids going they just got $3500 and a load of volunteers, bringing supplies, to clean up their community. Where the heck are the teens from their own community at to help out?

My daughter WANTED to do this...my son opted out. I know some kids whose parents are making them go.

Here is a little tidbit. I speak from first hand knowledge. I no longer attend church (left ~14 years ago). I have a relative who is WML of a neighboring ward. He had the elders over for dinner a few weeks ago and I was there. The elders live with an elderly widow in her spare bedroom. I have no idea whether or not TSCC pays this widow. The elders informed us that the 2 elders from ANOTHER ward are leaving their apartment and moving in with them! Same room! They are setting up 2 sets of bunk beds and using one bathroom. I don't know if this means anything but I think it stinks.

When they put two pairs of mishies in one elderly woman's room, undoubtedly that she donates, what it means is that mission president is trying to fast track himself for senior management at LDS Inc.

It is also elder abuse, and he should be in jail.

If the church had to spend more on missions, they would cancel the entire program. They cost to new tithing ratio is appalling and would never match the business case.

By offloading the cost to members, the church can run an inefficient program at little cost to themselves. If someone else is paying, why worry about the bill?

Missionaries pay their own way because it such a privelege and blessing to serve the Lard.