GA Stipend is modest compared to executive compensation

[Korihor]

Alright, I've probably been thinking about this too much. And, any standard TBM would not think about it to this level at all.

There is a big flaw in using executive compensation as measuring stick comparing GA "stipends". That would also imply we would measure the performance of the GA's similar to a corporate executive.

Big flaw #1 One of the best metrics to evaluate an executive is the financial performance of the organization. Since we don't have access to financial information it's impossible for us to know. But if GA stipends are 'very modest', does this imply the financial performance isn't doing very well.

Big flaw #2 If we compare GA stipend to executive compensation, we should hold GA's to similar standards of executives. Growth, profitability, customer satisfaction, new products, etc.

Big flaw #3 If a corporate executive doesn't perform sufficiently, (s)he is dismissed. GA's are almost guaranteed lifelong status.

Big flaw #4 If we view Executive compensation being similar to GA stipends, we should also view the church being similar to a corporati..... on yea, it is.

Suddenly, it looks like The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints doesn't seem like a well run corporation. It is plagued by bureaucracy, overhead burden is sky high, customer satisfaction is plummeting, innovation is woefully lacking, policies are burdensome, the president is incompetent (literally).

Now explain to me again why I should staying in the sinking good ship Zion? I don't think everyone on this ship can bail buckets of water fast enough.

[wtfluff]

Now explain to me again why I should staying in the sinking good ship Zion? I don't think everyone on this ship can bail buckets of water fast enough.

Well Kish-Kori:

You just gotta have faith...
It's not important to your eternal salvation...
Everything will be clear when you're dead...
Endure 'til the end...

How's that? Those are the best useless plattitude-y answers I could come up with in the millisecond I spent thinking about it.

[Korihor]

Now explain to me again why I should staying in the sinking good ship Zion? I don't think everyone on this ship can bail buckets of water fast enough.

Well Kish-Kori:

You just gotta have faith...
It's not important to your eternal salvation...
Everything will be clear when you're dead...
Endure 'til the end...

How's that? Those are the best useless plattitude-y answers I could come up with in the millisecond I spent thinking about it.

Dammit - my cold logic-based heart is foiled again by warm faithful rhetoric.

[Corsair]

I nominally agree with the church on executive compensation. These guys could certainly be earning more in the corporate world. Except that the average age of apostles is 80 and rarely do you get full time executives older than about 75. These guys would have retired 15 to 20 years before so it's more of a retirement income rather than a way to get wealthy working for a large corporation.

But, do recall the fifth and final covenant made in the temple. It's consecration and the description is simply to give everything to God and He and the church will provide for saints. Certainly the full time servants should be supported. During seminary my teacher made it sound like only very spiritual, celestial bound people would live the law of consecration. You give up all the fruits of your labor to the church and they guarantee that you and your family can live simply and happily, especially towards the building up of the Kingdom of God.

I always assumed that this would mean I would live a minimal lifestyle but would enjoy the happiness of living with righteous saints. If consecration means 120k per year, medical benefits, and university education for your children then I promise that lots of very devout people would sign up for living like that. Give that option to the poor saints that I saw getting assistance from the bishop when I was a ward clerk. Underemployment is a problem in the church and the Law of Consecration seems to be working for apostles and seventies.

Also, what does it say about these men that this comfortable lifestyle is needed to attract and retain the most celestial leaders of God's church? This is another area where I truly wanted to see spiritual leaders that truly were attracted to living a holy lifestyle. That would be certifiably interesting and compelling. It's not that $120k makes them look evil. It's that it makes them look normal. They really don't seem very special or the "Lord's Anointed".

[wtfluff]

I nominally agree with the church on executive compensation. These guys could certainly be earning more in the corporate world. Except that the average age of apostles is 80 and rarely do you get full time executives older than about 75. These guys would have retired 15 to 20 years before so it's more of a retirement income rather than a way to get wealthy working for a large corporation.

I"m glad you brought this up. If these guys weren't GA's, they'd be retired, living off of their owns savings. (If they had enough savings.)

Instead, they're not touching their own retirement savings, and they're living off of the charitable donations of their followers. (Many followers whom are retired, living off of a fixed income, and still paying the Q15's "living expenses".)

[Korihor]

(Many followers whom are retired, living off of a fixed income, and still paying the Q15's "living expenses".)

The stipends aren't paid with tithing, how many times do we have to tell you? It's paid with the interest earned from tithing. I don't understand why you people make such a fit about this.

[Meilingkie]

In Holland you can make lots of dough, except when you are working in the public sector, or semipublic sector. But for churches and charities the Same rule applies

Thou shalt not make more than the Prime Minister. Which is abt 140.000 gross all-in.
He does not get a house by the government.....

[wtfluff]

(Many followers whom are retired, living off of a fixed income, and still paying the Q15's "living expenses".)

The stipends aren't paid with tithing, how many times do we have to tell you? It's paid with the interest earned from tithing. I don't understand why you people make such a fit about this.

Plausible.jpg (30.46 KiB) Viewed 8285 times

[Corsair]

The stipends aren't paid with tithing, how many times do we have to tell you? It's paid with the interest earned from tithing. I don't understand why you people make such a fit about this.

LDS PR and apologists have an amusing blind spot about why apostates and many faithful have such a problem with this point. It's another case of waiting decades to explain church finances to the members and being annoyed over the technically legal ways that money is moved around.

It's also a manifestation about how the church has such a poorly defined doctrine of prophets despite loudly proclaiming the blessings of having a living prophet, seer, and revelator. The church continually tells members about the importance of Joseph Smith and his successors for the One True and Living church. This is absolutely ground into members with the implementation of "obedience with exactness" to missionaries and mission rules. But then they act surprised when members expect past and current prophets to be obedient with exactness. Thus we have the poorly received meme, "Give Brother Joseph a break" but the members will not also be given a break.

[dareka]

Many followers whom are retired, living off of a fixed income, and still paying the Q15's "living expenses".

This makes me think of my parents. They faithfully followed the church's advice to have lots of kids. And they always tithed on gross. Now, in their retirement, they tithe on their Social Security income. Does that count as tithing twice? Anyway, all they can afford to do in their retirement is work at the temple. Yet GAs are getting $120K per year. It just isn't right.

[Linked]

There are a number of reasons to be put off by the GA stipends, and reasons not to be put off. See BUT tree below.

- The stipends are not over-the-top. $120k/year is not that much for the leaders of a large organization
----- BUT, those stipends are paid, at some level, at the cost of the tithes of people the majority of who make far less than $120k/year
-------- BUT, the money did not come from tithing, according to the church's official comment
----------- BUT, the money was paid from the church, and tithing is paid to the church. We need more information about where these funds come from before we can trust that the original source of this money had nothing to do with tithing.
----- BUT, that money is NOT going to build up the kingdom or help the poor
----- BUT, the scriptures DO comment on this issue and say that religious leaders should not rely on the people
----- BUT, the modern GAs have repeatedly stated that the church does not have paid ministers
-------- BUT, Gordon B. Hinckley did say the GAs receive a modest stipend that one time 30 years ago
----------- BUT, that was one time, and 30 years ago, and there are many examples of GAs stating the church does not have paid ministers since then
----- BUT, many people serve in the church, faithfully putting many hours in, and receive no stipend
----- BUT, we don't know anything about the GAs other compensation, they could be making loads more in book deals, sitting on boards, retirement from other jobs, etc. They could be bringing in way more than what's been leaked
-------- BUT, who knows? And would it be fair to give money to poor GAs while not giving it to the more well off GAs
----------- BUT, Exactly! Who knows?! Tithe payers should. And according to the law of consecration it is perfectly fair to give according to what is needed
-------------- BUT, I trust the leadership of the church to use the money appropriately, and if not God will take care of that at the Judgement Seat
----------------- BUT, Okay then. I guess this thread is done.

[document]

I'm getting tired of two comparisons:

1. Comparing them to a small priest or pastor
2. Comparing them to an executive

The best comparison I have seen so far is to other large church leaders. I took my own bishop who earns roughly $112,000 a year, receives another $43,000 in medical, dental, and pension benefits, and finally gets his 10 - 15 years in the office of bishop in the home provided by the diocese. The bishop is roughly equivalent to a general authority: there are roughly 99 bishops compared to roughly 90 GAs (70s, 12, FP, PB, etc.) and they run both administrative and ecclesiastical division of less than a million people.

So, it seems about right.

So, why aren't people upset at my bishop for earning that much? Because it's never been hidden.

[Linked]

I'm getting tired of two comparisons:

1. Comparing them to a small priest or pastor
2. Comparing them to an executive

The best comparison I have seen so far is to other large church leaders. I took my own bishop who earns roughly $112,000 a year, receives another $43,000 in medical, dental, and pension benefits, and finally gets his 10 - 15 years in the office of bishop in the home provided by the diocese. The bishop is roughly equivalent to a general authority: there are roughly 99 bishops compared to roughly 90 GAs (70s, 12, FP, PB, etc.) and they run both administrative and ecclesiastical division of less than a million people.

So, it seems about right.

So, why aren't people upset at my bishop for earning that much? Because it's never been hidden.

Great points document. The amount really isn't the problem. The lack of transparency to those paying the bills is a major issue. I would add that another reason for frustration is that the church has made fairly clear claims that nobody in the church gets a pay check. So on top of the lack of transparency they have been lying. Or at least insinuating a lie.

[Korihor]

I'm getting tired of two comparisons:

1. Comparing them to a small priest or pastor
2. Comparing them to an executive

The best comparison I have seen so far is to other large church leaders. I took my own bishop who earns roughly $112,000 a year, receives another $43,000 in medical, dental, and pension benefits, and finally gets his 10 - 15 years in the office of bishop in the home provided by the diocese. The bishop is roughly equivalent to a general authority: there are roughly 99 bishops compared to roughly 90 GAs (70s, 12, FP, PB, etc.) and they run both administrative and ecclesiastical division of less than a million people.

So, it seems about right.

So, why aren't people upset at my bishop for earning that much? Because it's never been hidden.

Great points document. The amount really isn't the problem. The lack of transparency to those paying the bills is a major issue. I would add that another reason for frustration is that the church has made fairly clear claims that nobody in the church gets a pay check. So on top of the lack of transparency they have been lying. Or at least insinuating a lie.

Was your bishop also a successful businessman who was already retired or nearly retired and was likely personally successful in their career so much that his personal retirement funds were already sufficiently established?
Or was your Bishop providing compensated religious service while still needing to earn a paycheck?

Does your compensated Bishop actually interact with his congregation or does he usually sit in his office and occasionally travel and deliver speeches at a rally event while smiling at his congregation from afar?

[document]

I also take issue with the fact that they call it a stipend. I get why you pay a church leader in stipends, it has to do with tax law. I was shocked when I found out our priest received a salary and two stipends. When I talked to our accountant about it in the office one day, he explained that by law, a church cannot pay half of the SS tax on clergy, leaving them to pay the bill up front. This usually means that clergy pays a higher personal tax than those who work for a normal employer. However, a STIPEND is taxable income but only to the federal income tax, a SALARY is taxable income by both federal income tax and the payroll (SS) tax.

That is the reason for stipends for clergy. It has to do with a weird law requiring churches to _not_ pay half of the SS like a regular employee. I asked a coworker who moonlights as the CPA for a local Lutheran church. She gave the exact same answer. She said all churches do it. However, even though it is legally called a "stipend", all the priests and pastors treat it as salary. We just bundle it up in our budgets at church by calling it compensation.

However, if 30 years as a Mormon has taught me anything, it is that the institution is extremely crafty with language. They rarely outright lie. It is like listening to Obiwan trying to justify his deception to Luke in Return of the Jedi and Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" at the same. This just falls into the same boat.

It's a few years ago when I jokingly referred to Elohim in a conversation. A woman asked the Mormon lady at the group, "Do Mormons really believe in Elohim?" Her response was, "The name of our church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the church of Elohim". What she said was technically true and she didn't outright lie, but she absolutely deceived this woman. That's the LDS way of dealing with things.

We have unpaid clergy, they don't receive a salary! Well, that's true, they have stipends. Way to use the tax law to bolster your religion. Bravo.

[document]

Was your bishop also a successful businessman who was already retired or nearly retired and was likely personally successful in their career so much that his personal retirement funds were already sufficiently established? Or was your Bishop providing compensated religious service while still needing to earn a paycheck?

No, he was a priest of a moderate sized congregation in West Virginia.

Our incoming bishop (she'll be consecrated in a few weeks) was a priest of a small congregation in Idaho.

Clearly, neither is independently wealthy or successful business people.

Does your compensated Bishop actually interact with his congregation or does he usually sit in his office and occasionally travel and deliver speeches at a rally event while smiling at his congregation from afar?

A bit of both. Our bishop visits every parish once a year and performs confirmations (priests may baptize but only bishops may confirm). He gives the sermons, works with the kids, and talks with the people. He's a really down to earth guy. When he isn't visiting parishes (which takes up about half of his year) he is working at the Cathedral working as what a CEO of a medium sized company would do, attend business meetings and work with the higher level managers to make sure that the diocese is working well.

I'm assuming that GAs are doing pretty much the same thing. They travel (anecdotally more than the apostles do) to set apart Stake Presidents and establish new stakes. They are going here and there constantly to preach (give talks) at stake and regional conferences. The rest of the time, they are probably cooped up in their offices and stuck in meetings all day.

[MerrieMiss]

This makes me think of my parents. They faithfully followed the church's advice to have lots of kids. And they always tithed on gross. Now, in their retirement, they tithe on their Social Security income. Does that count as tithing twice? Anyway, all they can afford to do in their retirement is work at the temple. Yet GAs are getting $120K per year. It just isn't right.

This. My parents took too much of the church's advice on work and family planning. My parents are self-employed and took a big hit when my dad was bishop. If my dad didn't work, there was no money coming in. He probably spent more time during those eight years as a bishop than he did at his job. My mom told me that the month after he was released business turned around. Amazing how that works. It just isn't right that the time suck that is the church doesn't compensate people people who still have jobs and kids at home. My mom says they'll still have to work far beyond the point where most people retire in order to have enough for retirement and hope of course, that the economy continues to improve. I hope it works out for them.

Also, my dad told me that the Stake had a meeting where they encouraged calling self-employed people to specific callings because they had more time to give. Makes me sick.

[Linked]

Also, my dad told me that the Stake had a meeting where they encouraged calling self-employed people to specific callings because they had more time to give. Makes me sick.

That's just ridiculous! Some people are just out of touch.

[Just This Guy]

How's that? Those are the best useless plattitude-y answers I could come up with in the millisecond I spent thinking about it.

You spend WAY too much time thinking about some stuff.

[achilles]

So I'm totally a Marxist, anti-capitalist commie pinko, but isn't the main point of executive compensation to secure the employee in the face of competing offers? Who's giving the GAs competing offers?

Bull S@#$

Plus "Oh I'm really making a huge sacrifice going down to $120 K plus Cadillac benefits." Boo hoo. Tell me again when all your clothes are from a second-hand store, you're eating beans and rice for every meal, and have no access to health care.

Wait a minute, those people are paying your salary before they pay rent and buy food!

You've gotta hope that these guys feel even the tiniest twinge of guilt clear back in the recesses of their consciences to see so many living so poorly, and yet draw a modest stipend from the Church to supplement their already substantial nest egg.

This is much like the Church raking us over the coals over minor sexual peccadilloes, and yet straining to "Give Joseph a Break" on his philandering. Complete double standard. "I command you to give 10% of your sub-poverty level wage (gross, not net!)", and "behold! I shall take the Church up on its meager offer to defray my costs."

This is where the anger and betrayal comes from--finding out crap like the GA pay scheme.