4 ms·

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.
  - lcall 7y ago
    When I was very young I worked at a non-Church-owned bank for a while. Thomas Monson sat on its board, or at least showed up to a nice employee dinner/dance I attended. He had a business career before he was a Church General Authority, was brilliant, and for a time continued serving on various corporate boards, until GAs all stopped doing that. The GAs I know of personally who did not obtain wealth in their private career are not rich in any worldly sense beyond middle-class Americans, and the few I have met were kind and unselfish (and very bright & capable). I was a also Church employee for a time. In contrast, I have no experiences or knowledge indicating abuse of power or influence by GAs, except very rarely where I read about it in the news and they quickly were not GAs any more.
    - darksaints 7y ago
      How do you know the bank wasn't church owned or controlled? The church isn't exactly upfront with their holdings. They have been found to use shell companies to obscure their holdings. The fact that he was on the board is actually a huge clue that suggests that the bank was actually owned by the church. He did that with lots of church owned businesses. https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compiles-information-connecting-mormon-church-to-32-billion-of-investments/ https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compi...
      - lcall 7y ago
        No, it was "commercial security bank", and it wasn't that long after (I think), that they stopped being on boards. Edit: actually, I could be wrong on that. The Church might have had stock in CSB for all I know. It certainly didn't seem church-owned at the time. Monson did work in the printing industry.
    - lcall 7y ago
      Update: 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 .
  - lcall 7y ago
    I'm curious where this info could come from. Like, cars? The quote I heard from one GA (in a newspaper) was "you give them your life, and they give you a car." I once or twice rode in a Church-owned pool car to go to software-dev meetings in another city. And private jets? I read that the late (and wealthy industrialist) Jon Huntsman loaned his own jet to Pres. Hinckley some during those years (for his travels as President to visit Church members across the world), and maybe after, but calling it free use of "private jets" etc., seems exaggerated (but, for all I know, maybe there is one, and maybe they use it, but I'd be very surprised if there is a "jet pool", and any such thing is not used for pleasure outings. These men have a heavy, hard work schedule until they die, with Mondays off and 2 weeks a year, if I understand correctly. Monson did say he had a home in Midway (? I think: Heber Valley, a gorgeous area), but I doubt the Church owned or bought it. Like, I've been around these people some, and read much, and the tenor of what you are saying just doesn't ring true. One person I know, had some occasional interactions over time, was a GA, and he is definitely not rich (others in his family, also not rich, were offering to pay for new tires for his car, to get him safely back home safely from one reunion, as the tires they saw worried them. Maybe I shouldn't have said that as it was really not my business, but I was there, talked with my dad and/or mom about it, and what you are saying ... just doesn't sound right.) And how do you know that about free university (and any of it)? I'd be surprised. I'm not asking for a zillion citations, but, I'm skeptical. Edit: And free use of "private homes"? No idea what you could mean there, unless it is the condo that the president of the Church lives in for security reasons. Pres. Hinckley, a long-time do-it-yourselfer in his own yard & property, said he lived in a "filing cabinet: a condominium! I don't think people were meant to live in condominiums!".
    - darksaints 7y ago
      Some research courtesy of your exmormon community: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/45h0je/when_the_brethren_are_feeling_so_fly_like_a_g4/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/45h0je/when_the_b... https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/bpiftw/800000_to_fly_4_men_from_q15_today_in_private/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/bpiftw/800000_to_... https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/cvbh8q/impress_your_tbm_friends_and_show_them_how_they/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/cvbh8q/impress_yo... https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_8271793 https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_8271793 As far as free university, I know because I went to school with one of Christensen's sons and he told me.
- 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.

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.
- lcall 7y ago
  When I was very young I worked at a non-Church-owned bank for a while. Thomas Monson sat on its board, or at least showed up to a nice employee dinner/dance I attended. He had a business career before he was a Church General Authority, was brilliant, and for a time continued serving on various corporate boards, until GAs all stopped doing that. The GAs I know of personally who did not obtain wealth in their private career are not rich in any worldly sense beyond middle-class Americans, and the few I have met were kind and unselfish (and very bright & capable). I was a also Church employee for a time. In contrast, I have no experiences or knowledge indicating abuse of power or influence by GAs, except very rarely where I read about it in the news and they quickly were not GAs any more.
  - darksaints 7y ago
    How do you know the bank wasn't church owned or controlled? The church isn't exactly upfront with their holdings. They have been found to use shell companies to obscure their holdings. The fact that he was on the board is actually a huge clue that suggests that the bank was actually owned by the church. He did that with lots of church owned businesses. https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compiles-information-connecting-mormon-church-to-32-billion-of-investments/ https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compi...
    - lcall 7y ago
      No, it was "commercial security bank", and it wasn't that long after (I think), that they stopped being on boards. Edit: actually, I could be wrong on that. The Church might have had stock in CSB for all I know. It certainly didn't seem church-owned at the time. Monson did work in the printing industry.
  - lcall 7y ago
    Update: 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 .
- lcall 7y ago
  I'm curious where this info could come from. Like, cars? The quote I heard from one GA (in a newspaper) was "you give them your life, and they give you a car." I once or twice rode in a Church-owned pool car to go to software-dev meetings in another city. And private jets? I read that the late (and wealthy industrialist) Jon Huntsman loaned his own jet to Pres. Hinckley some during those years (for his travels as President to visit Church members across the world), and maybe after, but calling it free use of "private jets" etc., seems exaggerated (but, for all I know, maybe there is one, and maybe they use it, but I'd be very surprised if there is a "jet pool", and any such thing is not used for pleasure outings. These men have a heavy, hard work schedule until they die, with Mondays off and 2 weeks a year, if I understand correctly. Monson did say he had a home in Midway (? I think: Heber Valley, a gorgeous area), but I doubt the Church owned or bought it. Like, I've been around these people some, and read much, and the tenor of what you are saying just doesn't ring true. One person I know, had some occasional interactions over time, was a GA, and he is definitely not rich (others in his family, also not rich, were offering to pay for new tires for his car, to get him safely back home safely from one reunion, as the tires they saw worried them. Maybe I shouldn't have said that as it was really not my business, but I was there, talked with my dad and/or mom about it, and what you are saying ... just doesn't sound right.) And how do you know that about free university (and any of it)? I'd be surprised. I'm not asking for a zillion citations, but, I'm skeptical. Edit: And free use of "private homes"? No idea what you could mean there, unless it is the condo that the president of the Church lives in for security reasons. Pres. Hinckley, a long-time do-it-yourselfer in his own yard & property, said he lived in a "filing cabinet: a condominium! I don't think people were meant to live in condominiums!".
  - darksaints 7y ago
    Some research courtesy of your exmormon community: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/45h0je/when_the_brethren_are_feeling_so_fly_like_a_g4/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/45h0je/when_the_b... https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/bpiftw/800000_to_fly_4_men_from_q15_today_in_private/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/bpiftw/800000_to_... https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/cvbh8q/impress_your_tbm_friends_and_show_them_how_they/ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/cvbh8q/impress_yo... https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_8271793 https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_8271793 As far as free university, I know because I went to school with one of Christensen's sons and he told me.
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.