Are GAs Paid Salaries or Stipends?
In the past I have always referred to the amounts full-time General Authorities of the Church are paid as stipends. I’m wondering whether I’m being overly defensive in this practice, and I’m thinking about just saying they are paid salaries. But I’m having a hard time figuring out which is the most appropriate word–or perhaps there is a better, more descriptive term (allowance?). So I’m hoping my friends in the Bloggernacle can set me straight on how best to refer to these payments.
The background is that many Saints have no idea that full-time GAs are paid; they assume they are like local bishops and serve without payment. This is not the case. When I correct this misimpression, how should I refer to these payments?
The word stipend comes from Latin stipendium, from stips “gift, alms, small payment” + pendere “to weigh.” The definition is “a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses.”
The word salary comes from Latin salarium, which is the neuter form of salarius, lit. “of or relating to salt.” The word has its origins in the practice of paying a Roman soldier his wages in salt. The definition is “fixed compensation paid regularly for services.”
Based on these particular definitions, it seems as though either word would be appropriately descriptive. My sense, however, is that we go out of our way to avoid the word salary because we are so defensive about the fact that GAs are paid. I’m thinking we shouldn’t be so defensive about it, and we should be more open about it.
I suppose the possible distinctions are: (i) what they are paid is a relatively small amount not reflective of their true worth or what they could otherwise receive in private industry, or (ii) these amounts are not really compensation for services rendered, but simply provide for basic living expenses to free the GAs to accomplish some greater good (like a grad student receiving a living stipend).
A few general thoughts:
- In the past we have sometimes lorded it over other faiths because we do not pay our local leaders. I think this is hypocritical and that we should not do this.
- I wish the Church had more transparency about its finances. I can’t tell you how many times ordinary members have been surprised, even shocked, to learn that GAs are paid. (GBH, to his credit, has mentioned this over the pulpit, but a lot of members apparently never got the memo.) This lack of transparency leads to wild speculation about how much they are paid.
- I personally don’t really care that these payments do not come from tithing funds. We often make that caveat when discussing some potentially unpopular payment, but since money is fungible, what difference does it make? It seems as though it is nothing more than a PR statement.
So what are your thoughts about this?
Maybe “fellowship” or “endowment” are more appropriate.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 11:36 am
“Salary” implies compensation for services rendered. I don’t think GAs are earning wages. Your point (ii) above is I think the important bit, as I think ’stipend’ is more accurately describing what’s going on: we give them some money because they’re now too busy to go out there and work full-time jobs.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 11:39 am
I agree with “stipend.” You touched a sensitive chord in describing how we sometimes use our putative lack of professional clergy to make us feel superior over other faiths. This post should be read in tangent with Kathleen’s on lay clergy and JNS’s on Mormonism and Christianity.
Our full-clergy is professional in the sense that we compensate them (again, I think “stipend” is most appropriate here, notwithstanding my brilliant humor in #1). They are not professional in the sense of being professionally trained like priests or ministers in other faiths — unless you count the ones we draw from the ranks of CES, which complicates the question somewhat.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Kevin,
My understanding is that there are different arrangements made for each individual GA? Some are really wealthy and require little support. others are much less wealthy and require more.
If you are working and getting paid I would have to lean towards Salary.
You need to throw MP’s into the mix as well.
I avhe to say that I disagree on the lay leaders not getting paid on the local local level. Its a big deal and avoids a lot of really difficult problems
Comment by bbell — November 29, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Due to their definitions I don’t see salary or stipend being appropriate. The word allowance is defined as “a sum of money allotted or granted to a person on a regular basis, as for personal or general living expenses” and that seems to fit the description better (to me at least).
Like you, I really don’t care all that much but I think the difference is significant to some people. The fact is that once they are called, they cannot work to bring in income and they have to have some way to provide for their families. Sure, some of them may have lucrative investments or other resources and I have no idea if they all receive an allowance no matter what or if those who can afford their own living expenses pay those themselves. I just don’t consider the money they are given to be a salary they are paid to “preach” or a wage based on how many hours they work each day.
I’m sure if we broke down what they are given into hours per day that they actually “work” for the Lord, it would be a significant cut in pay from what they could be making had they stayed in the career fields most of them came from.
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Finally,
We should ask the IRS. Would clear it right up for us.
Comment by bbell — November 29, 2007 @ 11:47 am
bbell, I’m reasonably sure that what the GAs receive is taxable income, subject FICA and all the rest. Should taxability be a significant factor in how we characterize these payments?
Also, while I’ve heard that a few GAs who are very well off waive these payments, my impression is that that is more the exception than the rule.
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 11:53 am
I don’t remember a time (I think I heard it in seminary 40 yrs ago) when I didn’t know that General Authorities were paid a “salary.” I don’t know of anyone who thinks it is a big deal. The word “salary” is OK with me.
Comment by DJW — November 29, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Kevin, maybe you should go with “stipendium,” which makes it sound more elevated than simply sending them a paycheck every month.
The alternative to paying GAs would be NOT paying them, which would result in (1) GAs living in poverty; (2) only rich men being called as GAs; or (3) rich individual members buying GA influence by supporting less affluent GAs with monetary gifts. None of these are desirable, so even if paying GAs is not the ideal arrangement (given that no local leaders are paid), it’s the better than the alternative.
Comment by Dave — November 29, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
In my experience it’s been rare to meet a member of the Church who does not realize that GAs receive a living allowance.
Comment by john f. — November 29, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Stipend best fits what they do, but I have no personal preference. I agree that the church needs to be more transparent, in many aspects, this being one of them.
Comment by Dan — November 29, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
I think it would be good if the church and its members, when referring to a “lay clergy” like it’s a good thing, said “lay LOCAL clergy.”
This makes me think of the way the church touts the idea that its missionaries serve “at their own, or their family’s, expense.” That may be true of most missionaries from the United States, but it certainly wasn’t true of many, if not most native missionaries I served with in South America.
Comment by dug — November 29, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
I have a friend who’s ant works in the church office building and she says GA’s are paid $1 million dollars. Also the executive bathroms at the church office buidling have gold facets. She found this out when she found a piece of paper in the garbage that had everyone’s salary. Suprisingly the apostles make the same as the prophet alough he also get’s free lunch in the cafeteria. He doesn’t usually eat there though. He used to eat at Skool Lunch a couple times a week befroe it closed but now he brown bags it most days.
I agree we shouldn’t feel suparior to other faiths for not having a paid clergy. I propose all bishop’s be giv an immediate stipend. Stipend is the best word BTW.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Is needs provided for through law of consecration more descriptive or just obfuscating? It seems to me this is what is happening, though I hardly think it clears anything up with the General Public.
Comment by Doc — November 29, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
1. I have no problem with GA’s being paid.
2. For the life of me I cannot see any qualitative difference between using stipend/salary/allowance in this case.
3. Given that we do pay our full-time officials, I think our rants against other churches who also pay their full-time ministers, are lame. (But see point 1.)
Comment by RonanJH — November 29, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
I think the reason that the Church makes it clear that the allowances for the GA’s don’t come from tithing funds is so that no one can say that the reason our leaders are concerned about members paying tithing is so that they can live a life of ease. The GA’s also undergo constant persecution and scrutiny over every word they say and every move they make already. So as pathetic as it is, I think it is necessary to state that the funds come from a “commercial” pool of income so that members don’t think that they have a right to scrutinize every dollar a GA spends because it came out of their pockets.
I also don’t think that because the Church is discreet about such things that it translates into being secretive or hiding something that the members or public have a right to know about. Even GA’s have a right to privacy regarding their personal,every day lives and that includes what they spend on food, clothing and personal purchases. Unless there is a reason to suspect that the GA’s are spending “church” money on personal luxuries in some extravagant manner, their income like that of any other person is really no one else’s business.
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
LDS clergy is not, however, “professional” in any sense of the word–at either the local or the general level. “Professional” doesn’t just mean “does something for money” (modern usage sometimes to the contrary).
A profession (the classic three were law, medicine, and the clergy) typically involves a specialized set of knowledge, the necessity of peer review and peer control (e.g., Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, the legal bar societies, etc.) and ostensible dedication to something “higher” than just making money. (E.g., the Hippocratic oath, serving the public, etc.).
LDS clergy (paid or not) is not “professional” in this sense. There is no specialized training to be an EQ president, bishop, or president of the Church. No one “goes to school” to do those things. We have no seminaries or theological post-graduate schools. No degree is needed for any level of Church service.
You don’t choose to enter the fields, you’re called. No one with any sense would PLAN on being called to the Quorum of the Twelve as a way to support themselves.
So, being paid stepends, salaries, or honoraria doesn’t make one “professional.” Training for the career (usually via post-secondary education), mastering knowledge specific to the discipline, and self-policing are key. And, none of that really happens with LDS clergy at any level.
CES, arguably, is professional. But, CES is assuredly NOT the priesthood of the church.
Comment by Greg Smith — November 29, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
FWIW, WRT the scope of these payments, the WSJ for 11-9-1983 apprently reported that Seventies at that time were paid $40,000 per annum. Even factoring in inflation since that time and presumably higher levels of payment for apostles and 1P members, that indeed is a pretty modest level of compensation.
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
As to Dave (comment 9) and his third point:
Do we really think that the General Authorities would “sell” their influence if they were supported by gifts from wealthy members? If they are really the men we think they are, why would a change in the source of their living turn them into different men?
As to comment 13, I’m really impressed that your friend’s ant could read at all. It does stand to reason, though, that the ant would be in the trash can, and could find all kinds of dirt there.
Comment by Mark B. — November 29, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Kevin,
That was not far from the starting salary for 1st year associates at New York law firms in 1983. But, we all know they’re overpaid.
BTW, what source did the WSJ cite?
Comment by Mark B. — November 29, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I’d have to agree with tosh that “allowance” fits better in my mind. I receive a salary in one job and a stipend in another.
I negotiated my salary, and my intent is to be compensated fairly for the work I put it. I expect periodic review and increases of my salary. I live off my salary and hopefully have some left over.
I accept a stippend to help defray some of the costs associated with something else I do. There is no way I could live off my stipend. I’m lucky if it covers my costs. I often put in full time hours while receiving this part time (at best) pay. I don’t negotiate my stipend.
Comment by KyleM — November 29, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Most of the low/local Baptist Ministers I know are ‘paid’ like the GAs i.e. to meet their needs. Many live in a house owed by the local congregation. I also know many people who labor in their church for free. I vote for “paid for their needs” Stipends sounds like less than enough..or cheap.
Comment by Bob — November 29, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Comment 13, Mathew,
Skool Lunch! What a memory! I used to go there every morning for my cinnamon roll fix.
Comment by Mark IV — November 29, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Mark B., I saw the reference secondarily at a website; my guess is the WSJ didn’t cite any published source, but the number was based on anonymous information.
When you say that amount was close to the starting salaries at that time for NY-based law firm associates, that certainly puts a different spin on it. Maybe I was vieing that number too much through today’s economy, in which $40,000 would indeed be modest. (I also saw a reference to J. Reuben Clark complaining about the level of GA pay, that a good executive secretary in private industry made more than they did.)
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Here’s what I found on the Internet:
GA Class of 2007: Year-end bonus 35K, no special bonus
GA Class of 2006: Year end 35K, special 10K
GA Class of 2005: Year end 40K, special 15K
GA Class of 2004: Year end 45K, special 20K
GA Class of 2003: Year end 50K, special 30K
GA Class of 2002: Year end 55K, special 40K
GA Class of 2001: Year end 60K, special 50K
GA Class of 2000: same as 2001
These bonuses are on top of GA salaries beginning at $160,000 for first-years, $170,000 for second-years, $185,000 for third-years, $210,000 for fourth-years and so on and so forth.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
Whoops, my bad. #24 refers to salaries at the Cravath, Swaine & Moore law firm.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
CC, I’m glad you made that clarification! (g)
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
#24,
That applies only to NY GAs. California GAs are getting hosed even when you figure in the lower cost of living.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
#13
The idea that a piece of paper was even generated that simply listed the incomes of all of the GA’s is hilarious, let alone that such a paper would be randomly tossed into a garbage can where just anyone (and in particular someone who cannot resist sharing confidential information) had access to it.
But then again, it would probably be wrong to doubt the credibility of your friend or his/her “ant” just because she enjoys digging through the garbage at the COB, shadowing the prophet to find out what he eats for lunch every day, and keeps nitric acid in her purse in case she is ever curious about the composition of bathroom fixtures.
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
There are interesting conversations taking place in Washington about the need for a transparency law which would require religious organizations to disclose their finances in order to remain tax-exempt. This is being led by a Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) who helped bring down the president of Oral Roberts University by exposing his lavish lifestyle. He’s also going after several other Bentley-driving Evangelists.
The unfortunate result of the Church’s non-disclosure is that it’s terrible PR. Clearly the Seventies receive comfortable but appropriate middle-class incomes and have nothing to hide, but outsiders don’t see it that way. It’s constant fodder for the anti-mo crowd.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 29, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
What about GAs that make partner? And is there a tiered system between income and equity partners?
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
I heard that CES is up-or-out.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
I just wanted to put all of you church office building grasshoppers on notice: my ant just applied for a job at the COB. She is very industrious. Also, she knows bs when she smells it. ($1 million stipends to GAs? Ludicrous.)
Comment by S.P. Bailey — November 29, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
#30,
There are only 15 partners in the entire firm and when you consider how leveraged they are the chances of ever being made up are almost nil. In addition, there is no discernable rhyme or reason behind the voting system–its almost like someone else is randomly picking. You’re chances are better at Skadden.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
CC-
Regardless of what information you might find on the net-if you cannot authenticate that information, sharing it as if it were true is irresponsible. Better to run it past any random employee at the COB first. *grin*
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Mathew, don’t exaggerate re: Skadden.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Steve,
I know people who have worked at Skadden so I thik I have a better idea of the reality than you.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Hey wait…Matthew…did your spelling and syntax just suddenly and inexplicably improve? *G*
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
I can’t remember not knowing that GAs were paid some salary, and my impression has been that it is a very “comfortable” amount but not extravagant. (I don’t cite that as evidence of what they make, nor would I even know where to begin attaching a number to it, I just cite it as evidence of what this member’s impression has been, towards the discussion of “Do members know GAs get paid?”)
What I’ve NEVER heard before is that they *don’t* get paid from tithing funds. Not only did I not know that but now that I do I think it’s kind of silly. Is that even real, in the sense that it isn’t just a little accounting magic? You can’t tell me that if everybody stopped paying their tithing tomorrow, the GA’s checks would keep clearing indefinitely.
This member doesn’t care if they’re getting paid, and thinks they should just be paid from tithing. I wouldn’t blink if the number were as high as $70k-80k for those living in expensive areas.
I think the real reason for keeping the numbers under wraps is that inevitably, unavoidably, etc, etc, the figure is going to seem astronomical to those in poor nations. When you’ve got half the world’s population living on
Comment by blah 2 — November 29, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
#28 and #30,
My friend’s aunt (sorry for the bad spellign) is very honest and wouldn’t lie. And she wasn’t looking in the garbage–but she dropped something in their and needed to get it. And the prophet has lots of groupies. You ever go to church on a fast Sunday?
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
If it is a stipend, and merely compensation for living expenses, the amount should be constant for all the GAs, or at least have only minor adjustments for cost of living in a particular location. (ex. a GA living in NYC should get a larger stipend than one living in West Valley City) If it really changes for the Apostles vis a vis the Seventies, etc., then I call it a salary.
Also, are they being compensated for what they could make in an open market? If that is the case, then I call it a salary. BKP (CES teacher) would get paid far less than say, Bednar (B-school professor?) or Elder Cook (attorney).
In my mind, any money the GAs receive should be some base amount sufficient to meet their living expenses, and little or nothing more. I understand that they sacrifice a lot to be GAs, but they are compensated in influence and power.
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Also, does Pres. Hinckley get a stipend? I think he lives in a Church-owned apartment right off Temple Square (it allegedly has green-tinted bulletproof glass). So he doesn’t have a rent payment, so what does he spend it on? He probably has a driver and the Church covers the bills. Food? New suits from Mr. Mac?
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
tosh,
I’m better some days than others.:)
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
The Wall Street Journal article in question (”Leaders of Mormonism Double as Overseers of a Financial Empire”) reported that Paul H. Dunn’s “church salary is $40,000 a year.” This statement is made in the course of a discussion about Dunn’s connections to Afco Enterprises, a real estate venture which collapsed in 1982. Dunn resigned from the board of directors in 1978, but he apparently maintained ties to the company until 1982. The reporter cites court records in a civil suit involving Afco, so that may be his source for the salary figure. (Dunn gave a deposition in the case.)
Comment by Justin — November 29, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
AHKDuke,
You’ve crossed the line. President Hinckley’s suits are way too sharp to be from Mr. Mac. If you want to spew anti venom, go to a DAMU board.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Oh, I am not commenting on the quality of his suits. But isn’t Mr. Mac where all good Mormons shop for suits? Or is that just what they want me to believe?
Same thing goes for Deseret First Credit Union and their LDS-centric ad campaigns.
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Justin to the rescue! Thanks, Justin.
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
I don’t care, as long as they are paid. I wouldn’t want the alternative - just like I wouldn’t want a paid local clergy.
Comment by Ray — November 29, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Gordon Hinckley, October 1985 (after describing the Church’s commercial businesses):
So President Hinckley thought of the money the Church gives him as an allowance, an allowance that is comparable to executive compensation in industry and the professions (and is very modest in comparison, kind of like the income of most Church members). Like many, I see no distinction between Church money whether collected as tithing or generated by Church property, but President Hinckley thought it a distinction worth mentioning, and apparently worth keeping track of in the Church’s bookkeeping. Apparently, with that distinction, if tithing income ceased, the work of the church would not keep going, but the General Authorities would still be provided for.
However, given that we have a couple thousand stakes and tens of thousands of wards, all functioning without paid leaders, it’s a pretty good first-order approximation to ignore the couple hundred General Authorities who are paid. In preference to “lay clergy,” I like to think of it as a “nation of priests.”
Comment by John Mansfield — November 29, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Ray, can you elaborate on why an unpaid general leadership would be so detrimental? I am not disagreeing, but I’m interested in your rationale(s).
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
#44,
My friend has an uncle who is a Mormon who buys his suits at Brooks Brothers.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
#46,
Speak for yourself. We should pay the local clergy. They give so much.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Paid local clergy would never work, at least as we administer local clergy positions now. Can you imagine quitting your job for 7-8 years, getting paid by the Church (maybe not commensurate with your former income) and then after 7-8 years, being thrown back into that job? Lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. could not stand to lose clients by taking a long term hiatus from their careers. Mission Presidents get that treatment, but for a shorter period of time, and most of them are far outside the community where they have been working. Paying GAs works because they get it at the latter end of their lives and usually hold the position until death or emeritus status (which I believe still pays a stipend/salary).
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Deseret First Credit Union is for either working class or jack-Mormons. The true and faithful go to Zion’s Bank. C’mon! Everyone knows that.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
One other comparative salary note: I don’t know what SLC law firms were paying by 1983, but I had a classmate at law school who went started practicing there in the fall of 1980 at a salary under $20K.
So, $40K in 1983 was probably more than a new lawyer right out of school could have made in SLC that same year–but then again, about all that new lawyer knew how to do was run the photocopier, as soon as the secretary told him how.
Comment by Mark B. — November 29, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
I’m not suggesting they quit their jobs–but that they get supplemental income. We could tie it to performance in their ward in order to create incentives for better performance. I’ve often thought that missionaries would do a better job of ensuring retention if they could get a piece of whatever their downline brought in.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
I believe instead of paying the bishops, we should instead pay our teachers. The average EQ teacher puts a lot of time and effort into creating a professional and uplifting presentation — compensation commensurate with this service just sounds right.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
#57,
Maybe both could get paid–as long as the RS didn’t expect anything there would be plenty for everyone.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Mathew, I hope that is facetious or a joke; please don’t take this personally, but that is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. If you want to pay local leaders a little something on the side, to compensate them for time and sacrifice, I guess that is OK. But pay-for-performance for Church leaders is an abomination. We need less capitalism and corporate behavior in the Church, not more.
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Come on!!!
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
AHLDuke,
I have rudely hijacked this thread w/ a series of comments that are entirely tongue-in-cheek. Clearly I’ve got too much time on my hands (as opposed to the rest of the bloggernacle:)). I’ll stop now–apologies all around.
Comment by Mathew — November 29, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Well, you wouldn’t expect Pres. Hinckley or Elder Packer to be able to waive it, since they spent their paid careers working for the church:) However, Elder Uchtdorf retired as a Lufthansa pilot and reportedly doesn’t take money from the church.
I don’t know about Elder Nelson, who retired from a lucrative career as well. Of course, he has a young wife to support.
Comment by Naismith — November 29, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Mathew, I don’t mean to run you off. I thought it might be a joke, but just wanted to check. What worries me is that given the corporate culture and the creeping elements of the Prosperity Gospel in the Church, someone somewhere may have seriously entertained such an idea.
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
According to some inflation calculator I found, $40,000 in 1983 dollars is equal to about $80,000 in 2006 dollars. I wouldn’t be suprised if some GAs get that amount of money.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
This thread reminds me of an old Grondahl cartoon set at a Sunstone Symposium. One panel shows a room in which some academic is giving a presentation on something like a Unified Field Theory of all Gospel Knowledge; there are like three people in the room. The next panel shows someone giving a presentation on the Incomes of the General Authorities, complete with graphs; the room is packed to the rafters.
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
CC, when I was hashing this out this morning on another list (which led me to post on it here), the figure I had guesses was $75,000, so this seems pretty close to me.
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Ronan in #15. I finance equipment for a living and get an opportunity to look at financials and tax returns for evangelical churches here in the Bible belt a couple of times a quarter.
Many of these places are run by one or two guys who run all of their personal expenses(cars, boats, houses, school tuition etc) thru the church to avoid taxes and pay themselves healthy healthy salaries out of the till. As the offerrings increase so do their salaries. Just like a small business. In fact that is what they are small businesses set up for the financial benefit of the founders like a car wash or a law office with different tax laws. If you see a sign and a large building that says something like “harvest hills christian church” “Pastor Goerge Edwards” and is not connected to a national denomination its likely that the head pastor is running a church business.
Our system of local lay leaders is far far superior and much less corruptible then the typical non denomination christian church in the US.
Comment by bbell — November 29, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
I’ve heard it referred to as a subsistence.
And, while it makes little difference to the bottom line, I think it makes an emotional difference to know that the General Authorities aren’t living off of tithing funds. It would make me slightly queasy to think that the first world luxuries the General Authorities enjoy were being paid for by the money sacrificed by a single mother from Ghana.
Comment by Starfoxy — November 29, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Highest paid Church employee:
Bronco Mendenhall, head coach, BYU football. $500,000.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
The fact is that once they are called, they cannot work to bring in income and they have to have some way to provide for their families.
Actually, many prominent general authorities (particularly apostles and members of the First Presidency) publish books which, due to their ecclesiastical position, are virtually guaranteed substantial sales. Thus they are able to earn substantial royalties.
Comment by Nick Literski — November 29, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
OK - This is third party information at best but I have heard that GAs are promised that they will “have sufficient for thier needs.” I have always imagined that they live in nice , but not opulent houses, drive Chevys or Buicks and get their clothes at Mr. Mac’s. Their children, if they still have young ones, will be educated free of charge at BYU and they pay for other “needs” using a church charge card that is paid at church headquarters. Does that sound reasonable?
Comment by lamonte — November 29, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
I didn’t know, but I had wondered.
So do Mission Presidents recieve an allowance, too? David and I have thought about serving a mission when we are older, but since we’re not independantly weathy, we’ve wondered how we’lla actually be able to do it.
Comment by Tracy M — November 29, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Nick, it was my understanding that GAs typically do not receive much in terms of royalties on their publications. Do you have any data in this respect?
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
john f.,
I consider myself a reasonably well informed member of the Church and I had always been told that the 1st quorum of the 70 on up lived the law of consecration rather than getting a salary.
I never really understood this.
I’ve also heard that Huntsman refused calls in the past because of that.
Comment by a random John — November 29, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
“The average EQ teacher puts a lot of time and effort into creating a professional and uplifting presentation”
What ward is this, Steve?
Comment by Eric Russell — November 29, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
re #74- anybody think that Mitt has turned down any such callings? If this whole Presidential thing doesn’t work out, he’ll probably be a mission president within a couple of months.
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
#73:
Sadly, I don’t, Steve. Do you have any data to support that they “do not receive much in terms or royalties,” or are we just back to square one? In any case, it remains an income stream for them, to at least some degree.
Comment by Nick Literski — November 29, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Is it possible that the GAs follow the law of consecration WRT their assets, including future gains from book sales, etc.?
Whatever GBH receives, it’s apparently enough for him to buy some expensive suit-tie-cufflink combinations.
Comment by mapinguari — November 29, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
re # 74, that’s interesting arJ. I had never heard of that before reading your comment here. Were you joking? Who told you that?
Comment by john f. — November 29, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Nick (70),
I’m no expert of the publishing industry but I imagine that a book has to be a mega-hit to bring in any siginificant money. I’m sure that Elder Gerald Lund raked in lots of money with the Work and the Glory series since it was a runaway hit. And Professor Stephen Robinson (not a GA, just a BYU professor) probably hauled in a mountain of cash with Believing Christ since it was the dominant LDS book of the 1990s. But I would imagine that most titles languish on the shelves of Deseret Book and might even be money-losers.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
I noticed that in the last conference, there was a talk (I *think* it might have been Elder Holland’s talk) that spoke to Church members being able to explain the basics of our faith to non-members. It included a statement about how “local church leadership is entirely unpaid” (or words to that affect), rather than the usual “lay ministry” phrasing. This seems more accurate to me, as General Authorities really are professional ecclesiastical leaders, no matter how you slice it. For President Hinckley in particular, he’s been in the Church’s employ for most of his adult life.
I’m not particular about what to call it, though I think “salary” is probably more honest than “stipend” or “allowance.” (The former seems to temporary, and the latter to juvenile.) Maybe it could be referred to as Mammon from Heaven.
Comment by BTD Greg — November 29, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Also, WRT to GBH’s comments as quoted in #49 that “the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions” may still be very large in comparison to the median income in the U.S.
Comment by mapinguari — November 29, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Nick, I am not even sure that they receive any personal income off of those books, to be honest. It’s natural to assume that they do, but I would not be surprised to hear that they don’t or that most of them opt to donate any gains to the Church or to their families.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
arJ (74),
I’m not sure if I buy Jon Huntsman turing callings down. He is now a lower-tiered Area Authority Seventy. In the 1980s when I was a kid in Salt Lake he was my stake president. If I remember correctly, Huntsman was gearing up for a run for governor of Utah, and a former business associate brought out some serious dirt on Huntsman about how Huntsman stole a trade secret to start his chemical business (or something to that effect… I might be off base). Perhaps this political dirt is why Huntsman has not been offered a higher-tier GA position.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Ahem…yes, I know the difference between “to” and “too.” Why do you ask?
Comment by BTD Greg — November 29, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
By the way, regarding local leadership, Mormons did once upon a time pay a stipend/salary/whatever to some local leaders, including the bishop, the stake president, and the ward clerk. This ended some time shortly after the turn of the 20th century. While the salaries were fairly modest, so also are the salaries paid to many preachers in other Christian denominations.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — November 29, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
83: steve, this varies, though they have begun to talk about what the best policy might be. a large number of them give directly all royalties to the humanitarian or missionary funds of the church, but there is no official requirement.
more generally: the stipends are not fantastic but they’re not meager, some of the wealthier ones just don’t collect their stipend, and Matthew Cowley has hilarious stories about his stipend making him a welfare recipient who fit in well with the working class.
What do professional clergy call their compensation? That might be a place to start.
If I get some time, I’ll try to throw together a post about this specific problem in the early church. It’s fascinating to see what Sidney Rigdon, Joseph and Hyrum Smith and a couple others did in order to try to support their families while devoting their full time to the church.
Comment by smb — November 29, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Paid from tithing money, to boot.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
tracy, mission presidents do have a living allowance. wealthy ones tend to decline it.
Comment by smb — November 29, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Cartoon
Comment by Justin — November 29, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
I’m also under the impression that some degree of financial independence (though not necessarily wealth per se) is a prerequisite for being called as a MP, as well as an SP or a GA.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
1. Regarding #49, I find it interesting that GAs’ salaries should be compared to, or be in the same ballpark as, “executive compensation.” What does this say about the assumptions behind their work? Are they executives, shepherds, teachers, managers? It only seems to reinforce the “manager” model. Why not compare their salaries to teachers’ salaries? Which is another group that works too hard and is expected to do too much.
2. Isn’t the original thread simply questioning the notion that paying the top clergy but not the local clergy is somehow inherently superior to churches who do pay the local clergy? I can’t think of a Christian church in which no one earns income from the church, and I can think of plenty with smaller central administrations because by nature they focus on local congregations. Whether it’s called a stipend or living allowance or salary doesn’t make much difference, in my view; I think the author is right that some terms just might make you feel better.
Comment by CraigH — November 29, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
The problem that always comes up with this discussion is similar to the one we encounter in the “Are Mormons Christians” argument. The definition of what a Christian is according to the creeds is different than what we consider a Christian to be. The word “clergy” is Greek in origin and it means “that which is allotted or something assigned by lot or inheritance” and historically applies specifically to the local ministers of specific congregations-namely bishops, priests, deacons. By orthodox Christian definition, “theologians” are not considered clergy-and in many ways they echo our own CES teachers etc.
By the universally original definitions of both clergy and theologians, the LDS Church does NOT have a paid clergy and no orthodox Christian would say otherwise. Our General Authorities and First Presidency have been ordained deacons, teachers, priests, and then elders and high priests but do not serve in local ministries or as leaders of specific congregations, and almost all of the oldest orthodox religions do not classify their own “church officials” as clerics or clergy-even though they also have the ability and authority to perform the duties of lower “Holy Orders”.
While the LDS Church does ordain members to be deacons, teachers, priests and bishops, it does not remove them from the “laic” class and therefore does not use or recognize the term “clergy” at all. Because it is impossible for the Church to pay or not pay positions that don’t exist within our organization, we would be more accurate when responding to questions from non-members by stating that we have no clergy and our Church is run by lay members. As the highest “officials” in our Church-the 12 and 1st Presidency simply hold offices that come with a living expense and would not be viewed by orthodox religions as being clergy anyway.
* I haven’t had a chance to read through the last 40 posts, but in response to “where” the money for their living expenses comes from-it does not come from tithing. It comes from the income generated by Church investments and businesses. Tithing funds are used for such purposes as the building and maintenance of meetinghouses, temples, and other facilities, as well as for the partial support of the missionary, educational, and Welfare programs of the Church.
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
That’s an excellent and important point.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Salary/stipend amounts are unimportant. The real indicator of wealth in America today is good health insurance. Anyone know what the GA health insurance plan is? Does it continue into emeritus status? Any co-pays?
Comment by Melinda — November 29, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
$500K in TITHING money? Are you KIDDING me??
Comment by Tracy M — November 29, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Or if it includes coverage for mental health?
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Tracy, all BYU employees receive their checks from BYU, which is an institution that is heavily subsidized by the Church. It’s not accurate to say that Mendenhall’s salary is “tithing money,” although the Church does subsidize his employer.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
I might technically be wrong, Tracy. I’m definitely not an expert on Church funding. But I’ve always been told that BYU is run, top to bottom, with tithing dollars.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Justin #90, that’s the one! You are amazing. Thanks for finding it; it makes for a nice illustration for this discussion, I think.
Comment by Kevin Barney — November 29, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Steve got there first — and with a better answer.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Melinda, as a primary shareholder (and former sole owner) of Intermountain Health Care, I believe that the Church does just fine for health insurance for its employees and General Authorities.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
I think it should be clarified that living allowances are not given willy-nilly. For instance mission presidents have to submit a strict budget describing their expected expenditures for a year, each year they are serving. At least that is my understanding, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
Comment by mmiles — November 29, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Brad, BYU isn’t run exclusively with tithing dollars, not by a wide margin. As with any academic institution they receive alumni donations, have a trust fund and numerous patents, etc. on which they derive income.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
That makes me feel ill. It’s bad enough the huge gulf between what teachers and athletes make, but that my tithing dollars are subsidizine such a gross miscarriage of salary injustice is… well, it disturbs me.
Comment by Tracy M — November 29, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Steve.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Evidently, Tracy, as Steve has pointed out, it’s not as bad as I made it seem with my shoot-from-the-hip speculation.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Tracy, it disturbs many people — the issue of disproportionate funding for sports programs is something that haunts every college in the United States. BYU’s football program is an enormously popular legacy that makes the university very important in the public eye, but whether the salaries are just and the use of funds appropriate is a matter of debate. But the Y is not unique in this dilemma.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Brad,
Tuition.
Comment by KyleM — November 29, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Doh! Note to self: Hit refresh before submitting.
Comment by KyleM — November 29, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
#91: “I’m also under the impression that some degree of financial independence (though not necessarily wealth per se) is a prerequisite for being called as a MP, as well as an SP or a GA.”
You’re under a mistaken impression then. While many MPs and GAs are financially independent, many are not. Several GAs, for example, worked in CES before becoming GAs, and working for CES does not lead to financial independence. My father was a MP, and finances were a pretty serious concern during the mission, even with the living expense stipend. (”Stipend” for a mission president makes more sense to me, since mission presidents serve only for a limited time, and the money is spefically designated for living expenses.)
Comment by BTD Greg — November 29, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Kyle,
I know — I paid it. Evidently it wasn’t worthwhile investment, since the education it purchased didn’t teach me to think for four seconds before typing absurdly illogical comments.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
BTD Greg,
See # 112
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Also, BYU football is an income-generating asset. The Las Vegas Bowl (where BYU will likely play this year) has a payout of $1,000,000 per team. And of course there are ticket revenues. But the program probably also costs a lot in coaching staff salaries, jerseys, helmets, pads, cleats, etc. and stadium maintenance. The program very well may be running at a net loss. But then again, it generates a lot of external publicity and alumni goodwill that might be worth it.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Brad - I saw #112. What was I supposed to have gathered from that? That you didn’t get much out of your BYU education?
Comment by BTD Greg — November 29, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
BTD = Begging to DIE!!!
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Does BYU need external publicity or a reason to foster additional alumni goodwill? If it is running a net loss, get rid of it.
Comment by MAC — November 29, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
The bloggernacle is such a mean and hateful place. I’m retreating back to the secular blogosphere where I belong.
/sarcasm
Comment by BTD Greg — November 29, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
AHLDuke (#46),
The original name of Deseret First Credit Union was LDS Church Employees Credit Union. For several years, credit unions had relatively open membership and expansion policies, but a Supreme Court decision limited credit union membership to a single group with “a common bond of occupation or association, or to groups within a well-defined neighborhood, community, or rural district.”
The consequence was that Deseret First Credit Union was required to limit membership to those having some affiliation with the LDS Church and their close relatives. So it is not particularly surprising that they target their advertising at the only audience they are legally allowed to serve.
Comment by Mark D. — November 29, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
The other issue with Bronco’s salary is that there is a national market for college head coaches. Many of them make over 1MM annually. In order to attract a good coach in the national market one must pay a market salary. Based on the last couple of years Bronco is a steal at just 500K
Comment by bbell — November 29, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
From the BYU Athletic Department:
Most of the funding used for BYU’s athletic programs comes from football and men’s basketball ticket sales. Additional funds are obtained through corporate sponsors, the fundraising efforts of the Cougar Club, and private donations. The university does provide a small amount of funding, but no tithing dollars from members of the LDS Church are used to run the athletic programs.
Comment by Eric Russell — November 29, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
MAC, yes it does. Yes it does. No, they shouldn’t.
Comment by KyleM — November 29, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Begging-To-Die Greg,
It was my tacit acknowledgment that I had posted in ignorance.
[furrows brow shamefully]
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
re: 114 Doubtful. College sports are major sources of income for big universities. I’m sure BYU footmall makes a lot of money for the U, just as Michigan football makes a fortune for my alma mater.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
relevant data on College football coaches. Bronco is way way down the list.
http://www.dopke.com/Archives_Pages/Coaching_Changes/DIACoachesComp2006.htm
Bronco is way ahead of a lot of these coaches in the BCS standings. He is a bargain….
Comment by bbell — November 29, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Rather than just looking at the cost of BYU sports, it may well do much better to look at the subsidy on tuition at BYU. When tithing money paid by impoverished but faithful members is used to subsizide the tuition of a student whose family can easily afford it (dentist, doctor, lawyer, etc.), there’s the closest thing to a scandal we get in the church, in my view. It would be much better to charge a realistic tuition (at least that of a similarly ranked public university) and then use tithing money to ensure that students with real need are able to attend.
Comment by TMD — November 29, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Shout out, Mike. When did you graduate? I myself, along with brood, just started grad school here this Fall.
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
When I refer to the subsidy on tuition, what I mean is the difference between operating expenses and revenues that is made up with tithing dollars. I’m not saying that no tithing dollars should be used–there are a number of functions that BYU performs which should recieve the support of concecrated monies–but the regular education that students recieve should be paid for at the going rate. Especially given that there are far too few classroom spaces to accomodate more than a small fraction of the population of LDS college students.
Comment by TMD — November 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
#88
.
And you are positive about that or are you guessing? A far more logical guess would be that because he is university staff, that his salary comes from the tuition generated by that university.
Most people don’t know this-but it has never been a secret- the LDS Church has a philanthropic organization that raises funds/donations/scholarships for all of the Church owned schools and universities (besides doing all kinds of other amazing things) and tens of millions of dollars flow through it every year. Not one dollar that they ever see is a tithing dollar. You should also know that all “Church” employees do NOT get the same benefits as university employees and vice versa. For example, none of the people (or their children or spouses) who work for the above mentioned organization get to attend BYU for free or at a discount, nor do they have any “pull” at getting their kid accepted over someone else’s.
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
It’s my understanding that tithing money is used in the country where it was paid first. So tithing paid by that impoverished South American family (for example) stays in South America. It is supplemented by tithing sent from the U.S. and Canada.
So the tithing of members of impoverished countries never reaches BYU; it stays home. The dentists, doctors and lawyers who send their kids to BYU also pay enough tithing to fund the building for the impoverished South American tithe payer.
You are correct to worry that tithing from the faithful impoverished in countries that generate more tithing than they need to cover their expenses (the U.S. and Canada) might end up at BYU. However, you need not worry that African, South American, or tithing dollars from any country with a small Church membership are going to BYU.
Comment by Melinda — November 29, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Melinda (130),
That’s interesting, and reassuring. But where did you get this information?
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Melinda, the point was not “impoverished countries” but “impoverished members.” There are many very poor but tithing-faithful Saints right here in the USA, even in Utah, even in Provo, who can’t afford to send their children to BYU but who do help to subsidize the children of those wealthy members.
Comment by Kermit — November 29, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
I never said anything about country; In my experience in the US, I’ve known realtively few members with incomes substantially above the median income; and more than a few have lived quite near the poverty line, if not below it.
Comment by TMD — November 29, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Great, now I feel guilty for going to BYU on the dime of poor Mormons.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
As well you should, CC :-).
When I had to drop out of BYU due to lack of funds, I resented what seemed like constant telephone fund raisers urging me to donate to BYU. And since this was back in the era when the decision was made to expand the stadium rather than expand the library (a sin since rectified), I ***REALLY*** resented those calls.
Comment by Kermit — November 29, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
CC, but now you are wealthy and subsidizing someone else, so it all works out in the long run, right?
Comment by Jim — November 29, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Tracy and TMD-
Tithing dollars do not pay BYU football coach salaries.
The Church has NUMEROUS charitable giving programs (such as the perpetual education fund etc) and LDS Foundation grants to HELP and assist underprivileged students attend college.
Call me old fashioned or conservative or even just plain rude, but I must say this:
Making broad statements that can be interpreted as facts about the Church and which funds pay for what things, without doing your homework first is irresponsible and paints the Church falsely as an evil financial machine. (and that can be clearly seen by the reactions of some readers in this thread) IF any of the stunned readers bother to dig up the real facts after reading some of these posts, I’m fairly sure it isn’t going to do much to support the idea that bloggernacle participants (and BCC participants in particular) are educated enough to be a reliable source of information.
Sorry if that insulted anyone, but I needed to say it.
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Hey! I never went to BYU, and I subsidize it, so quit complaining!
Comment by Jacob M — November 29, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Brad said: “It was my tacit acknowledgment that I had posted in ignorance.”
Fair enough. I appreciate the candor.
You know, it’s not the first time I’ve heard this. I wonder where this idea originates. I suppose it’s probably a function of the “wealth = prosperity = righteousness” argument that seems to persist.
Comment by BTD Greg — November 29, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
tosh, I don’t think you needed to say it. Really.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Kermit,
It doesn’t matter if you DO have the money to get your kid into BYU or not-if their grades aren’t high enough-they wouldn’t get in anyway. Most of the kids who earn the grade point average AND meet the other requirements for attending qualify for scholarships anyway. The enrollment cap keeps far more kids out of BYU than poverty does. JFYI.
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
I for one will lobby eternally for the tuition to remain where it is. If you want to impoverish the poor, take away their opportunities for higher education.
Comment by Ray — November 29, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
MAC (117),
I have heard an apocryphal story about President Monson about him ordering a large-screen televsion from R. C. Willey and phoning the store to rush the delivery of the new TV because there was a Utah Jazz game coming on that he didn’t want to miss. Apparently he’s a big sports fan.
So BYU probably won’t be cutting football while he is president of the Church. Although it is interesting to note that BYU-Idaho terminated its sports programs…
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Tosh: The scandal seems most eggregious one considers that high gpa correlates (of course imperfectly, but there is still an association) with high income, and thus most of the beneficiaries are people whose families, or themselves, can pay more.
But the tinge of scandal of the model of BYU funding is not really the point. Asked more simply as a policy question,
Why should the church use consecrated funds to pay for the regular education of a small fraction of its members who can afford to do so, while the rest of its members have to pay more for an equivalent education (at another private institution, or at a public one) by dint of slightly lower grades or SAT scores?
I’m not saying ‘no byu’ or ‘no tithing at byu,’ but rather asking if it might make more sense to adopt a financing model more akin to other private institutions with (in their cases, endowments) additional resources beyond tutition, like Harvard or Grinell, or even the small college I atteneded (1300 students, endowment of >$240M), where those resources are used (among other things) to make up the difference between a price that reflects cost of education and the cost to student when that price would make attendance unattainable.
And frankly, I highly doubt that the endowment and foundation support at BUY are such that tithing plays no role in funding the regular education of each student, given the low tuition number.
Comment by TMD — November 29, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Tosh,
Doing your homework is a laudable goal, but based on my memory of your storm of comments over the last couple of weeks, I don’t think of you as being in much of a position to criticize someone for not doing her homework.
Comment by Posh — November 29, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
second para, second sentence should be
‘…for the regular education of the small fraction of lds college students at BYU, many of whom could afford to pay more for said education, while…’
Comment by TMD — November 29, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
We are pretty good friends with a few different families who have served as mission presidents and although they are not all independently wealthy (although, I must say of the 7 I know personally, 5 of them are quite wealthy) the one thing I know is an absolute requirement is that they can’t have any debt. This is true whether they are CES employees or own a multi-million dollar lumber company.
I also know of 2 of those families who sold their home and all that they had and donated every dime of it to the church. My understanding is that in return, they are living the law of consecration. I am not sure the details, I thought it would be rude to ask - but this is what I was told, that as long as they are working for the church in some capacity, all their needs will be cared for. They have told all of their adult children that they will not be receiving any sort of inheritance when they die - the money has all been given to the church. They’ve been mission presidents and temple president and now are working in another capacity on a church construction project.
Kind of a threadjack - sorry.
Comment by bandanamom — November 29, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
A little vague (sorry, I don’t have permission to share the source at the moment) historical information, FWIW.
One GA who was a seventy in the 1950s (and later became an apostle) was paid a monthly salary of less than $600 in the early 1950s, and so relied on author royalties for books he wrote (for Bookcraft or Deseret Book) as an important supplement to his family income.
Some time after that there was a significant increase in his salary, due to at least one apostle (Delbert Stapley) advocating for more competitive salaries.
Comment by toshh — November 29, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Kevin,
In #18 above, you presume that apostles and First Presidency members get higher stipends/salaries than seventies.
I believe I have read that all apostles, seventy, and First Presidency members were put on the same “pay scale” sometime in the 1960s - 1970s.
(I don’t recall the source offhand, but I believe it may have been an old Dialogue article. Or maybe it was the Prince/Wright McKay bio. Or Quinn’s “Extensions of Power.” It seems that the same source discussed the bretheren’s consideration of instituting an emeritus status for apostles–the context was that McKay was ill and Smith was old, and some GAs felt that Lee would have much more longevity. Does that article/source ring a bell to you?)
Of course, additional general quorums of seventy have been added since then. They may have a differing compensation, since members of the second quorum only serve for five years, and area authority seventies generally keep their full-time employment.
Comment by CE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
“The one thing I know is an absolute requirement is that they can’t have any debt.”
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Unless you mean to exclude mortgages from debt (only Church-sanctioned kinds of debt, perhaps?). My parents carried a mortgage during their time as mission president.
I’m also highly suspicious of the Law of Consecration families.
Comment by BTD Greg — November 29, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Justin to the rescue - again?
Comment by Ray — November 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
I think this thread is pretty indicative of how much we lay members know about the management and operation of our church on any hierarchical level. Hours of fun!
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
You can live like a king in Provo/Orem on $500,000 a year.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Another latecomer thought:
I would rather have the GAs paid an adequate stipend/salary by the church, than to have GAs depend on multiple board appointments, book sales, or other outside activities to subsidize their living.
I understand that earlier in the 20th century, apostles used to sit on many different corporate and non-profit boards, but this practice seems to have diminished in the last couple of decades. Perhaps the church has become more able to support its GAs as membership has grown. I view this change in practice as a postive thing.
Comment by CE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
CC, 500K/yr isn’t enough when you remind me he has to live down there.
Comment by KyleM — November 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
I’m sure they receive profits on the books they write while authorities. Deseret Book: Profits for Prophets!
Comment by Merkat — November 29, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Not in the case of a man I know who had a large family, taught at BYU, had just returned from a one-year leave (half salary, perhaps), and was hoping to get back on his feet financially, when the call came to be a mission president. I still don’t know if he’s recovered from that financial hole.
Comment by Mark B. — November 29, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Bandanamom,
My father served as a mission president, is definitely not wealthy, and carried a mortgage the whole time. My parents leased out our house while they were gone.
The other LoC stuff sounds more legendary than real.
Comment by Mark D. — November 29, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
But then you’d have to live in Provo/Orem.
Comment by Mark B. — November 29, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Re: 148–Why don’t you just say “Bruce R. McConkie”? There were only seven “Seventies” who were General Authorities back in the 50’s, so the one who fits your description isn’t hard to find.
Comment by Mark B. — November 29, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
TMD-
While the Church and tithing dollars do pay for buildings and property maintenance etc of Church universities and schools, I haven’t seen any authoritative evidence that the Church uses tithing dollars to pay the TUITION (or lower the tuition)of ANY student attending Church owned schools.
According to the stats listed on BYU’s official website, the average GPA and SAT scores for BYU freshmen this Fall was 3.78 and 27.9. I have two college students and none of their friends who currently attend BYU have families that would be considered “high income” by any means and all of them used a partial or full scholarship of some kind because their parents cannot afford any form of tuition. But it isn’t the cost of tuition that kept 25% (2600+) of the applicants from attending BYU this fall, it was the fact there there just isn’t room for them.
BYU receives substantial endowments from many sources but the only thing I can tell you is that I was married to someone who worked for the LDS foundation and as of around 10 years ago, they were handling donations (again-they do not handle tithing dollars in any way) close to 100 million a year and growing.
Either way, I’m fairly certain that the salary of the football coach wouldn’t be a priority for tithing dollars-especially when less than half of the ticket sales from one home game would cover him for a year.
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Why are there so many Provo / Orem haters on this website? Ever been there? It’s not half bad.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
CC, it’s not half good, either.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Which half isn’t bad?
Comment by Sam B. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Tosh: Buildings and maintenance are part of the operation expenses of the school. Everywhere else, they are paid for from the general fund (which is where tuituion goes). By having that expense covered by an outside fund, the income required to meet remaining operational costs is correspondingly lowered. Hence, the tutiion required to balance the budget is smaller. As such, EVERYONE who goes to BYU is implicitly having part of their their tuition paid by tithing funds.
Comment by TMD — November 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Sam B., the navajo taco half.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Well, for starters, you have the river bottom area off of University (in Orem). Then, in Provo, there are some nice neighborhoods up on the hill. (By TimpView High). You’d think twice about smearing Provo/Orem if you drove these areas.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
CC, I must admit that most of my time in Provo was behind bars (MTC), but I had been there a couple other times. That’s enough.
Comment by KyleM — November 29, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Many thanks to Posh aka toshh (and any other brilliant future incarnations)for so willingly providing another example of the kind of behavior that reflects negatively on the credibility and intelligence of those who participate here. There is no way I could have done it the justice that you have-bravo!
Comment by tosh — November 29, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
CC,
I’ve at least driven through all of those areas, and I wouldn’t give up my non-Provo/Orem two-bedroom apartment for a mansion in any of them. (Plus I could probably find a Navajo taco around here somewhere; I’m sure Steve could direct me in the way to go.)
Comment by Sam B. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
OK, fine, but where would you want to raise a family of four kids: Provo or Manhattan. I think the answer is a slam dunk.
Comment by California Condor — November 29, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Yes: Manhattan.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Amen, Steve.
Comment by Sam B. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Might I direct the discussion towards the question of why the Church is not more transparent in these matters? The mystery only stirs controversy, and GBH’s public responses (e.g., tithing is between the Church and its members) don’t hold water because we ARE members and we obviously don’t know what’s going on.
So, friends of the policy, why is the Church so determined to keep its finances hidden?
Comment by Paul M — November 29, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Provo is awesome. They have three (count them, three) used bookstores on their historic Main Street that ends in the library. You have to love any town that has three (did I mention there were three?) used bookstores and a library in its business district, all within walking distance of each other.
Comment by Melinda — November 29, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
(Manhattanites coughing politely in snobby undertones at Melinda’s quaint defense of Provo)
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Melinda, Richard has combined his two stores into one, so now there are only two.
Comment by Eric Russell — November 29, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
But agreed that Provo is awesome nonetheless. Does Manhattan have a mountain with a giant Y on it? That’s what I thought.
Comment by Eric Russell — November 29, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
178 - But it doesn’t have a building for King Kong to climb on, now does it?
Comment by Jacob M — November 29, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Jacob — Four letters to humble your ignr’ant comment: SWKT.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 29, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
But that tower is only big enough for Cain’s descendant, not King Kong!
Comment by Jacob M — November 29, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
TMD, your #144 assumes that LDS students who don’t go to BYU do so because they got lower grades. Some of us got better grades to get a better than equivalent education so we wouldn’t HAVE to go to BYU. But I still pay for other kids to do it anyway.
Comment by AHLDuke — November 29, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
“Cain’s descendant” — a conspicuous bit of Mormon lore.
Or is it…
Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
AHLDuke: Ummm,yes, so did I, and so do I. I’m just asking if the current system can’t be improved upon…
Comment by TMD — November 29, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
OK, fine, but where would you want to raise a family of four kids: Provo or Manhattan.
Ditch them both and move to Kansas City. Or Memphis. Or Louisville. Or Durango.
Seriously, Manhattan? Ugh. Have your children live somewhere with a soul.
Comment by queuno — November 29, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Regarding paid ministry -
I’ve been doing the tithing settlement thing the last few nights as a low-level ward functionary. Tonight, one sister coming in for tithing settlement brought a basket filled with individually foil-wrapped loaves of pumpkin bread for the clerks and bishop and counselors that were present. Best church pay I’ve had in a while.
Comment by queuno — November 29, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Excerpt from Extensions of Power:
Paid Ministry
Comment by Justin — November 29, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
queuno: What will you tell the dear sister when she asks if you sent her tithing to Salt Lake?
Comment by Jim — November 29, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
On football … I never did go to a game. Bought tickets for the reunion and gave them away and spent the time building some furniture for my daughter at BYU, but, BYU did some serious economic analysis before expanding the stadium.
It is easy enough to state that the stadium and the football program operate at a net profit, but the question everyone had was how much of that was really parasitic drag (where people who give to football would have given anyway)? Once you correct for parasitic drag, probably only 15-20% of the football programs in the US generate net revenue.
BYU is one of them. The program is a net revenue generator of substantial margins, with proper econometric calculations rather than fannish wishful thinking approaches.
Who, btw, are generally outnumbered by the janitors who are paid. The LDS Church pays more for janitorial services than it does for ministerial. Always struck me as significant.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — November 29, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
Interesting link there.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — November 29, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Fwiw, Norm Chow made multiple times more as the Offensive Coordinator at USC than he would have made as the Head Coach at BYU. Kim Clark took a HUGE pay and prestige cut when he left Harvard to become the President of BYU-Idaho, especially when you consider that he was getting serious attention as a candidate for the Harvard University President vacancy filled by Drew Gilpin Faust.
Comment by Ray — November 29, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Ha! We’re all clueless! And we trumpet the superiority of our lay clergy all the time without the slightest clue that we are clueless. Doubly clueless! Justin is excepted.
Comment by a random John — November 29, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Justin and Ardis are always excepted. They are only here to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
Comment by Ray — November 29, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
I admit I haven’t read any comments yet. My take on the premise is as follows.
The 1040s of GA’s have W-2’s stapled to them just like other employees. They report amounts paid as “Wages, tips, other compensation” to employees. Dress it up any way you want. In the context of broad US culture that is the way it is and I see no need for perfume. Anyone who knows the facts and financial realities in the marketplace realizes how underpaid they are. But then, I always think I am underpaid, too.
Comment by we — November 29, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Maybe they could start a hedge fund and be compensated with carried interest.
Comment by Bill — November 29, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
If Steve and SamB’s endorsements of Manhattan haven’t sent you packing for the Big Apple, check out a fine Personal Voices essay in the latest Dialogue: Seeds of Faith in City Soil: Growing Up Mormon in New York City by Neylan McBaine. She writes that “New York gave me my testimony. Or, more accurately, the city acted as a sacred conduit in which I could confront feelings and have experiences that led me to Christ.”
Sorry, it’s not online yet. Check in the library or, better yet, buy it. (Hey, just spreading the seasonal spirit of shameless merchandizing!)
Comment by Molly Bennion — November 29, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
I just learned at this Mormon Stories video interview that children of General Authorities are automatically admitted to BYU, and they pay no tuition. I’m very surprised, and in fact I wouldn’t even believe it was true if the source wasn’t so credible.
One wonders what other perquisites come with being a GA.
Comment by ed johnson — November 30, 2007 @ 3:32 am
Tracy:
I’m not sure if you saw Eric Russell’s comment relating to whether tithing funds are used to run BYU’s sports program so wanted to repeat it here:
This explanation opens the door to debate whether tithing funds from members of other religions are used to run BYU’s athletic programs but seems pretty conclusive with regard to tithing funds of Latter-day Saints.
Comment by john f. — November 30, 2007 @ 4:54 am
My understanding and experience is that a salary is compensation based on the value of one’s services. A stipend may be nominal or substantial, but is compensation acknowledged as less than the value of services rendered. This source indicates that a stipend is lower than a regular salary because it is accompanied by other benefits “such as accreditation, instruction, work experience, food, accommodation, and personal satisfaction.”
Stipend seems the appropriate term for general authorities, unless they receive pay comparable to that received by the top executives in other nonprofit or charitable organizations. To call their pay a salary would imply that they are compensated monetarily for the full market value of their services. It was recently reported that the national scout executive receives nearly $1 million in salary. He may be overpaid, but I somehow doubt GA compensation is in that neighborhood.
Presumably, the balance of the GAs compensation is mostly intangible “personal satisfaction” from serving in a church calling.
Comment by Left Field — November 30, 2007 @ 7:00 am
“The one thing I know is an absolute requirement is that they can’t have any debt.”
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Unless you mean to exclude mortgages from debt (only Church-sanctioned kinds of debt, perhaps?). My parents carried a mortgage during their time as mission president.
I’m also highly suspicious of the Law of Consecration families.
Every family I know who has served in the past 3 years has told me there is a no debt requirement. I do not know for certain if this includes a mortgage or not. But the CES family I knew sold their house so they would not have a mortgage.
You are welcome to be suspicious of the law of consecration families but one of them I am quite close to, and I can assure you, that is what they’ve done.
I can’t give more details than that.
Comment by Bandanamom — November 30, 2007 @ 7:43 am
Let me also make it clear - I do not think this law of consecration is a requirement for all GAs. But I think it is an option for some.
Perhaps it would help also to understand that this particular family has been serving since the early 80s - and they have served more or less continuously since then with a few “breaks” lasting no more than a few months.
Comment by Bandanamom — November 30, 2007 @ 7:53 am
queno,
We could move out of Manhattan and raise our daughter somewhere with a soul . . . or we could stay here, and raise her somewhere with many souls, plus playgrounds every four or five blocks, plus high-end restaurants that are child-friendly, plus museums, plus dogs everywhere, plus the really cool Quebequois on the corner selling Christmas trees, plus live jazz, dance, theater, etc. year-round. And did I mention the farmer’s markets?
No offense to Kansas City, et al. I’m sure they’re all great choices. But seriously, a place with only one soul? (Or, as we learn elsewhere, daemon?)
Comment by Sam B. — November 30, 2007 @ 8:33 am
“Every family I know who has served in the past 3 years has told me there is a no debt requirement. I do not know for certain if this includes a mortgage or not. But the CES family I knew sold their house so they would not have a mortgage.
You are welcome to be suspicious of the law of consecration families but one of them I am quite close to, and I can assure you, that is what they’ve done.
I can’t give more details than that.”
I don’t mean to be antagonistic, but I know of one family (mine) in which the mission president and his wife (my parents) carried debt while they were serving (their mortgage). Mortgage is debt. Maybe they are limited in the kinds of debt they can have (i.e., home mortgages are okay, but consumer credit card debt is not–in which case they could get around it by refinancing their home), but I’m not sure. One other commenter here said it was the same with his parents.
In some cases, it might make sense to sell your house, but it didn’t for my parents. At the time, the IRS’s rules (I think they’ve been changed since then, but I’m not a tax lawyer or a CPA) did not allow you to sell your home and not buy another one for three years without being taxed on the capital gain. This was the biggest reason they rented the home while they were serving, but even renting, it was pretty tight for them.
I suppose that it’s possible that the rule has changed since my parents served seven years ago, but I hope that’s not the case. I’d hate for this Church to become one that’s run by an theocracy of wealth. There’s already too much emphasis on material success (as an indication of righteousness) in our culture, in my opinion.
Comment by BTD Greg — November 30, 2007 @ 9:29 am
To California Condor:
What’s wrong with Provo/Orem?
I should know–I lived most of my first 19 years there. And the problem is that the place has been completely Californicated in the 30 years since I left.
And, to whoever asked where you’d want to raise your four kids, Provo/Orem or Manhattan, I have an easy answer: Brooklyn.
My five kids seem to have done fine here.
Finally, to all those who suggest that income from football exceeds expenses, and that no tithing dollars fund the sports business at BYU and yada yada yada.
A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. Every dollar that goes to the temple of sweat is a dollar that doesn’t go to the temple of learning. And don’t even start with the stuff about big-time college football covering its costs. The FBS (is that what it’s called now?–if so, the BS part is most appropriate) schools are the most creative accountants in the world when it comes to reporting about the revenues/expenses of football programs. At least BYU doesn’t lie like the others–it just doesn’t disclose any numbers.
Comment by Mark B. — November 30, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Mark B. (204)
What’s that supposed to mean?
By the way, the one time I went to Brooklyn was when I accidentally got off on the wrong subway stop, and it looked like a rough neighborhood. I was actually concerned for my own safety. I got right back on the subway as fast as I could.
Comment by California Condor — November 30, 2007 @ 10:15 am
tosh #141, BYU actually admits the great majority of its applicants. It’s less selective than many state universities.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — November 30, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Is that Mark B, served in the Kobe mission? Attorney? Son of BYU religion professor?
Comment by MAC — November 30, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I’m not bothered that we pay them, they work hard and if they aren’t personally wealthy, they need to live just as much as the rest of us.
What bothers me is how Deseret Book takes their talks, puts them in books and people think they’re extra righteous if they buy all these books and I just don’t think it’s right to sell their books based on their status as a general authority.
Comment by annegb — November 30, 2007 @ 10:50 am
One thing I like about BYU is that it is apologetic about not letting in a fraction of those who apply, while other schools do tricks to drive up their rejection rates so U.S. News will love them for being so selective.
Comment by John Mansfield — November 30, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Sort of off topic, but I heard something funny on the radio yesterday. We have this thing called “Tradio” where people call in and sell stuff, etc.
The pastor the Baptist Church called and said they wanted to hire somebody for day care, at $8.50 an hour for Sundays.
That just struck me as funny.
Comment by annegb — November 30, 2007 @ 10:54 am
John, that’s not true. Everyone knows only nerds apply to BYU.
Comment by KyleM — November 30, 2007 @ 10:56 am
MAC–if this were baseball, you’d be batting .666, but I don’t think Dad would take kindly the suggestion that he taught religion.
California Condor:
I wouldn’t think that term would need a definition–it seems to be pretty clear on its face. But, if you must, try this, but don’t go there if reading a bad word will spoil your day.
By the way, we try to make the neighborhoods around the subway stations look tough so that outsiders will get back on the subway, and then take the quickest way out of town to Scarsdale or Jersey.
Comment by Mark B. — November 30, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Mark B.
Let me take another swing. Father of Maryanne (sp)?
Comment by MAC — November 30, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
In the military, I got a “Rum Ration”….never mind.
Comment by Bob — November 30, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
#212 Mark B: “neighborhoods around the subway stations look tough so that outsiders will get back on the subway” Isn’t that a line out of Tony Bennett’s: “I left my heart…in Brooklyn.”(?)
Comment by Bob — November 30, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
#212: Mark B: Your not saying these bad things about California, because someone sold you a bridge in Brooklyn?
Comment by Bob — November 30, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
MAC, now you’ve raised your average to .750–but chemistry still ain’t relig