5 ms·

The moneymakers in the temple were making money for themselves, profiting off of the nominally faithful. This is very different from saying the church shouldn't

The moneymakers in the temple were making money for themselves, profiting off of the nominally faithful. This is very different from saying the church shouldn't acquire wealth.

darksaints 7y ago
The Mormon church tried for years to pretend that their leaders don't make money from the church. That too was confirmed as a lie not too long ago.
- sturgill 7y ago
  Find me the executive team of a multimillion person company with hundreds of billions of assets making the living stipend of the (relatively few) ecclesiastical leaders of the Church and your argument will have more weight. IIRC, the living stipend for members of the Twelve was around $100k? Or less than the salary of an intern at Google...
  - darksaints 7y ago
    What you need to understand is that Thomas Monson, who was an employee of the church (notorious for their extremely low pay) for his entire career, had an estimated net worth of $14m. That is excluding the church owned property that he gets to use free of charge, including private jets, cars, and homes. This is excluding free income sources such as free university for all family and extended family members. Outside of nearly every aspect of his life that was paid for, he was paid a parsonage stipend...untaxed by the IRS. He was no Jeff Bezos, but that is still miles away from being modestly compensated, as they like to pretend is happening. And remember, they're only admitting to being modestly compensated after a century and a half of pretending they weren't being compensated at all...a lie exposed by leaks, not the mormon church. They haven't been upfront about compensation, and they never will unless they are forced to.
    - sturgill 7y ago
      I’ve never found that number substantiated anywhere. But we agree that the Church is tight with its money. I just argue that’s a good thing...
      - darksaints 7y ago
        We only agree that the church is tight with its money with respect to how that money is used to benefit members and the unfortunate that should probably be the beneficiaries of good old christian charity. But tight with its money amongst those that control it? Neither of us know...because it is a secret. A secrecy that has no benefit but to protect those who control it from scrutiny. I don't know how you could view either of those things as a "good thing" in the traditional christian understanding of good.
        alanwreath 7y ago
        I think you've just described FUD. Asking for more transparency isn't bad though - this would require a change in US law or wherever they operate. Start there. Then all religions might meet the standard you're describing. There are abusers in every organization and transparency would be good.
        darksaints 7y ago
        If they're as benevolent of an institution as they pretend, we wouldn't need such a law. They already can publish financial reports without any law compelling them to do so. But they aren't a benevolent institution.
        lcall 7y ago
        The Church, with the Book of Mormon, are far and away the single best influence in my life. I experience peace amid hard health and other challenges, friends everywhere I go, people who help me and are a good influence, personal guidance in quiet but important ways (I see both the good and the bad based on whether I follow that guiet guidance), and I see the same things in long-term multigenerational ways among very many others (in writing and in person). And, based on experience, great reasons for hope of eternal life in the world to come. For those who distance themselves from it, they are loved, we are close, but I have seen that the multigenerational peace and joy are not the same. I am exceedingly grateful for the Church's influence in my life. Further, I have learned for myself, that God is real, helpful, and kind (both just and merciful, actions have consequences, and extremely patient with us as we repent, aka change back to doing things that help us rather than hurt ourselves). These are things that no amount of hint & innuendo from others can change, because I have personally seen, experienced, and learned. I have tried to explain more at my web site (which has no sales or javascript): http://lukecall.net http://lukecall.net . I think I lack the adequate words.
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    Do you forget that $100k is a lot of money in most places? > Or less than the salary of an intern at Google... It'd be remarkable if their stipend was less than the salary of an intern at nearly any other company. Google is a huge exception
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      Every first tier software company pays their interns pro-rated 100k+ or they won't get interns. I worked in a 5 year old "startup"/pre-ipo company in seattle with 200 employees and we paid interns 100k and college grads in their first job over 130k annually (not giving the exact amount to preserve a little anonymity). I'm sure faangs give those people 50k of real-value stock per year at least.
- gwilliams 7y ago
  They don't get wealthy from it. Those who work for the church full time (with the exception of missionaries) receive a stipend to cover their living expenses and not much else.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomrod 7y ago
    > They don't get wealthy from it. Source/citation? My understanding is that salaries and other financials are not public.
    - lcall 7y ago
      As I have noted elsewhere, I have personally known one where I know for certain his family (also not rich, visited their homes for years) was worried about his old car tires' safety for a long drive home, and two others tangentially who I'm somewhat confident were not rich. Another, Bassett, I knew when young, then he made good as a founder/owner in the auto-auction business (where I have a little grunt-level experience). Elder Gay was founder/executive in a private equity firm (quick wikipedia search). The prior careers are available on-line, I'm pretty sure, because there is always some blurb about their prior bios when they are called. Another I knew of in another state who started and ran a locally successful accounting firm. Nelson is widely known to have been a heart surgeon, and it goes on & on. Edit: I found a page with links to their bios (fairly international, if you read down & click photos), that indicate education & prior careers: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders .
  - darksaints 7y ago
    > They don't get wealthy from it. We have no way of knowing that, because the church keeps their finances shrouded from public view. Not even members that have paid 10% for their entire lives have a view into how the money is spent. What we do have is a few leaked pay stubs showing actual amounts, and leaked memos acknowledging the existence of, but not quantifying, other forms of compensation. We also have some tangible evidence of the large net worth of various leaders of the church. The typical excuse is that they made lots of money before they were general authorities...but we also have proof of large (8-figure) net worths of people like Thomas Monson, who was a church employee (notorious for lower than market pay) for his entire career. So what we really have is some leaked proof of a decently sized lower bound on compensation and knowledge that it goes higher than that, with the possibility that it could go much higher. How much higher, we don't know. And we won't until the church decides to actually share their finances. I know that unapproved critical thinking is looked down on in the mormon church, but if I were a believing member, I would probably be asking why they won't do just that. If they really are responsible and meagerly paid stewards of god's money, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by being transparent about it. Occam's razor tells me that they're a bunch of liars and secrecy suits them far better than transparency does.
prepend 7y ago
I would imagine that the moneychangers were paying some amount to the church. I think the issue was that the church was being used as a place for worldly pursuits.
- darkerside 7y ago
  Here's how I've always understood it. People used to make sacrifices to compensate for their sins. The merchants at the temple were selling offerings to be sacrificed, which was problematic for a couple of reasons. They were profiting off of the guilt and shame of others, they created a system that implied you could straightforwardly pay for the right to sin, and they made a mockery of the system of sacrifice for sin in the first place.
Spooky23 7y ago
In addition to the money changers (who exchanged local currency for Roman gold or silver), the dove sellers were also expelled. Doves were the cheapest sacrificial creature, and they were gouging poor widows. The whole point is that the temple authorities were part of and profiting from what was happening. Jesus was dead with 10 days of this event. There is a lot of depth here and it’s a genuinely fascinating story whether you ascribe to religious belief or not.

The moneymakers in the temple were making money for themselves, profiting off of the nominally faithful. This is very different from saying the church shouldn't acquire wealth.

darksaints 7y ago

The Mormon church tried for years to pretend that their leaders don't make money from the church. That too was confirmed as a lie not too long ago.

sturgill 7y ago
Find me the executive team of a multimillion person company with hundreds of billions of assets making the living stipend of the (relatively few) ecclesiastical leaders of the Church and your argument will have more weight. IIRC, the living stipend for members of the Twelve was around $100k? Or less than the salary of an intern at Google...
- darksaints 7y ago
  What you need to understand is that Thomas Monson, who was an employee of the church (notorious for their extremely low pay) for his entire career, had an estimated net worth of $14m. That is excluding the church owned property that he gets to use free of charge, including private jets, cars, and homes. This is excluding free income sources such as free university for all family and extended family members. Outside of nearly every aspect of his life that was paid for, he was paid a parsonage stipend...untaxed by the IRS. He was no Jeff Bezos, but that is still miles away from being modestly compensated, as they like to pretend is happening. And remember, they're only admitting to being modestly compensated after a century and a half of pretending they weren't being compensated at all...a lie exposed by leaks, not the mormon church. They haven't been upfront about compensation, and they never will unless they are forced to.
  - sturgill 7y ago
    I’ve never found that number substantiated anywhere. But we agree that the Church is tight with its money. I just argue that’s a good thing...
    - darksaints 7y ago
      We only agree that the church is tight with its money with respect to how that money is used to benefit members and the unfortunate that should probably be the beneficiaries of good old christian charity. But tight with its money amongst those that control it? Neither of us know...because it is a secret. A secrecy that has no benefit but to protect those who control it from scrutiny. I don't know how you could view either of those things as a "good thing" in the traditional christian understanding of good.
      - alanwreath 7y ago
        I think you've just described FUD. Asking for more transparency isn't bad though - this would require a change in US law or wherever they operate. Start there. Then all religions might meet the standard you're describing. There are abusers in every organization and transparency would be good.
        darksaints 7y ago
        If they're as benevolent of an institution as they pretend, we wouldn't need such a law. They already can publish financial reports without any law compelling them to do so. But they aren't a benevolent institution.
        lcall 7y ago
        The Church, with the Book of Mormon, are far and away the single best influence in my life. I experience peace amid hard health and other challenges, friends everywhere I go, people who help me and are a good influence, personal guidance in quiet but important ways (I see both the good and the bad based on whether I follow that guiet guidance), and I see the same things in long-term multigenerational ways among very many others (in writing and in person). And, based on experience, great reasons for hope of eternal life in the world to come. For those who distance themselves from it, they are loved, we are close, but I have seen that the multigenerational peace and joy are not the same. I am exceedingly grateful for the Church's influence in my life. Further, I have learned for myself, that God is real, helpful, and kind (both just and merciful, actions have consequences, and extremely patient with us as we repent, aka change back to doing things that help us rather than hurt ourselves). These are things that no amount of hint & innuendo from others can change, because I have personally seen, experienced, and learned. I have tried to explain more at my web site (which has no sales or javascript): http://lukecall.net http://lukecall.net . I think I lack the adequate words.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  Do you forget that $100k is a lot of money in most places? > Or less than the salary of an intern at Google... It'd be remarkable if their stipend was less than the salary of an intern at nearly any other company. Google is a huge exception
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    Every first tier software company pays their interns pro-rated 100k+ or they won't get interns. I worked in a 5 year old "startup"/pre-ipo company in seattle with 200 employees and we paid interns 100k and college grads in their first job over 130k annually (not giving the exact amount to preserve a little anonymity). I'm sure faangs give those people 50k of real-value stock per year at least.
gwilliams 7y ago
They don't get wealthy from it. Those who work for the church full time (with the exception of missionaries) receive a stipend to cover their living expenses and not much else.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tomrod 7y ago
  > They don't get wealthy from it. Source/citation? My understanding is that salaries and other financials are not public.
  - lcall 7y ago
    As I have noted elsewhere, I have personally known one where I know for certain his family (also not rich, visited their homes for years) was worried about his old car tires' safety for a long drive home, and two others tangentially who I'm somewhat confident were not rich. Another, Bassett, I knew when young, then he made good as a founder/owner in the auto-auction business (where I have a little grunt-level experience). Elder Gay was founder/executive in a private equity firm (quick wikipedia search). The prior careers are available on-line, I'm pretty sure, because there is always some blurb about their prior bios when they are called. Another I knew of in another state who started and ran a locally successful accounting firm. Nelson is widely known to have been a heart surgeon, and it goes on & on. Edit: I found a page with links to their bios (fairly international, if you read down & click photos), that indicate education & prior careers: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders .
- darksaints 7y ago
  > They don't get wealthy from it. We have no way of knowing that, because the church keeps their finances shrouded from public view. Not even members that have paid 10% for their entire lives have a view into how the money is spent. What we do have is a few leaked pay stubs showing actual amounts, and leaked memos acknowledging the existence of, but not quantifying, other forms of compensation. We also have some tangible evidence of the large net worth of various leaders of the church. The typical excuse is that they made lots of money before they were general authorities...but we also have proof of large (8-figure) net worths of people like Thomas Monson, who was a church employee (notorious for lower than market pay) for his entire career. So what we really have is some leaked proof of a decently sized lower bound on compensation and knowledge that it goes higher than that, with the possibility that it could go much higher. How much higher, we don't know. And we won't until the church decides to actually share their finances. I know that unapproved critical thinking is looked down on in the mormon church, but if I were a believing member, I would probably be asking why they won't do just that. If they really are responsible and meagerly paid stewards of god's money, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by being transparent about it. Occam's razor tells me that they're a bunch of liars and secrecy suits them far better than transparency does.

prepend 7y ago

I would imagine that the moneychangers were paying some amount to the church. I think the issue was that the church was being used as a place for worldly pursuits.

darkerside 7y ago
Here's how I've always understood it. People used to make sacrifices to compensate for their sins. The merchants at the temple were selling offerings to be sacrificed, which was problematic for a couple of reasons. They were profiting off of the guilt and shame of others, they created a system that implied you could straightforwardly pay for the right to sin, and they made a mockery of the system of sacrifice for sin in the first place.

Spooky23 7y ago

In addition to the money changers (who exchanged local currency for Roman gold or silver), the dove sellers were also expelled. Doves were the cheapest sacrificial creature, and they were gouging poor widows. The whole point is that the temple authorities were part of and profiting from what was happening. Jesus was dead with 10 days of this event. There is a lot of depth here and it’s a genuinely fascinating story whether you ascribe to religious belief or not.