By now nearly all of you will have read of the “leaked” documents regarding allowances made to General Authorities. I’ve read about these documents in the news accounts; I have not gone to the leak site to read what is posted there. Neither, by the way, did I visit that site, or watch the videos, that were leaked there last October. I have never looked for the surreptitiously recorded temple ceremony that I’ve heard is online, or even looked for Handbook 1 that is distributed only to local priesthood leaders. If you think that’s because I’m a goody two-shoes, fine. If you have viewed any or all of those sites, please don’t tell me so in comments – I don’t want to argue about it. I’m just telling what I myself have or have not done.
As nutty as I am about learning all I can about my people and my church, I have no interest in getting my information from thieves and liars and those whose intent is to undermine the Church as an institution, or members’ confidence in their leaders, or Saints’ faith in the gospel. There is no possible benevolent purpose in a Church member’s exposure of internal matters to public criticism. Anyone who has demonstrated his infidelity by leaking such materials has destroyed his credibility with me.
In this particular matter – the financial support of a relatively small body of upper-level Church leaders – I know and understand far more than the leaker does. I could not have told you what allowance was paid today to any given leader, but I know the historical practice. I’ve read tens of thousands of pages of documents generated in the course of the 20th century operation of the missions, and am aware that payments to cover living expenses have been paid to such leaders for generations. This is not and has not been a secret – it hasn’t been widely known among the public, but then, there was no real need to talk about it publicly.
I know that in the 20th century, a mission president’s allowance was determined by where he was assigned – there was no set figure for mission presidents as a body. Not only was the amount set based on living expenses in this or that place, but payment was adjusted depending on the size of a mission president’s family, or whether his children could go to local schools or had to be enrolled in private schools, and other individual factors. Allowances were adjusted year by year as expenses changed. In the early ’30s when the world-wide Depression affected various countries in different ways and caused wild swings in currency conversion rates, allowances were adjusted as needed.
Why the adjustments? Because the allowances were not salaries. Mission presidents were not being paid to do a certain job, which would have merited the same pay regardless of mission. Rather, allowances were intended only to cover living expenses. As David O. McKay wrote to one president in 1937,
The allowance given to Mission Presidents is merely for expenses, and is in no way compensation for services. The president is devoting all his time – often for the second or third period – to missionary service, [and] the appropriation given him [pays] his actual living expenses.
Some version of that explanation appears in countless notices to incoming mission presidents: You are not being paid to be a mission president. We’re covering your actual living expenses, largely because you have devoted so many years to Church service that you haven’t had a normal opportunity to focus on your family’s material interests.
While my personal expertise is limited to the 20th century and to missions around the world, I see no reason to suspect that the basic principle has changed when it comes to the presiding quorums of the Church in the 21st century. Such allowances are not fundamentally different from support payments sent to young missionaries by their wards, or by random members donating to the Missionary Department — is an elder supported by his family performing unpaid service while an elder supported by his ward is paid clergy?
Leaking documents like these has only one purpose: To stir up controversy among people who, without the question ever having crossed their minds before, suddenly feel they have been lied to because nobody ever told them this thing that they were never interested in before. Don’t let anonymous muckraking cowards manipulate you with these leaks, or with whatever leaks they have planned for the future. They aren’t doing any of this to bless your life.
I’m sure you don’t have any strong feelings about this. 😉
I have taken a look at the documents and the videos and mostly all I can say is I was reminded why I never became an accountant or went into business. A bunch of dry budget documents relating to how much money the Church spent on website maintenance and publishing scriptures. I’m sure it was fascinating to the bean counters out there. I could only last so long.
Though my personal favorite was the document on Church policy relating to ladder safety (that’s ladder not latter) on Church property. Riveting.
But like you said, it’s mostly the people who are caught off guard by something they never thought about or even cared about before someone told them.
Got to agree with quantumleap42 about people all of a sudden getting interested in the church payroll because someone leaks some info. Most converts are from some church group that had paid clergy and most likely think nothing of it. I think where people get tripped up is; 1) we often say that we have a lay clergy that isn’t paid. Not sure the General Authorities are lay clergy, being they are professionals running a major world organization. But people below them are mostly lay clergy. 2) King Benjamin stating his way of supporting himself. But he doesn’t talk about the palace, servants, foods provided, guards and etc. Just your everyday living expenses. This to me is a non-starter and as you said getting info from those that have agendas doesn’t bode well with me either. I’m even a little disturbed about the shows talking about Scientology or any organization that people want to inform others about.
Did you read the post?? They aren’t being paid for their work; they’re being supported in their work. There is a vast difference. Claiming that these allowances make them “paid clergy” shows that you have fallen completely under the spell of the leakers who have no goal but to undermine your confidence in the Church.
I’m sorry I can’t state that more tactfully.
Are you talking to me? I’m stating what people may be thinking as for me they are not paid clergy and who cares if the Lord pays them, his church his rules. They receive allowance, for as you say, to support them in their work for the church. This leaked info will surly bother many because of the reasons I gave. I agree with you but it may be my poor choice of words.
I’m sorry, Mex. It’s a hard day.
It’s been a hard day for sure. Been a long time fan and I take no offence. But I’m glad I didn’t use ‘Priestcraft’ in my comments, LOL.
Hear hear.
People ‘apply’ to serve missions based on their availability, health, and financial situation. Mission presidents and general authorities are called to leave their occupations in mid career to serve for extended periods of time. It certainly seems reasonable that their expenses are covered so that their children don’t go barefoot or hungry while their parents serve. There is still plenty of financial sacrifice as the mission president may face hurdles returning to his business after three years. I’m not sure how that is worked out.
However, I’m concerned about this report on ladder safety. I’m guessing that maybe we weren’t actually supposed to be balancing on tables to decorate for the Christmas party. And as for ladders, is it OK if you have two of your Relief Society sisters holding you up?
I’ve long thought that “no paid clergy” is an oversimplification it would be best to avoid. Personally, I’d count paid Seminary and Institute teachers as “paid clergy,” even though ordination is not required (e.g., for women): their duties have more to do with teaching the Gospel and building faith than with academic instruction, and they’d probably be called something like “youth ministers” in another church. I can’t think why I should object to them being paid. They’re worthy of their hire, and no one does it with the expectation of getting rich.
But of course we can’t call them “paid clergy” because that order of Nehors was so rotten, and because we’re very proud of how much gets done by unpaid people who support themselves doing other work. It seems to me that it’d be just better to acknowledge that widespread ordination blurs the distinction between “lay” and “clergy,” that the line is further blurred by unordained ministry similar to what ordained ministers do in other churches, that the Church has a variety of employees doing a variety of things, and that some of those employees really are engaged in ministry. It’s fine to be proud of what people do when they sacrifice their time, talent, effort and opportunity without any expectation of remuneration, but we shouldn’t stretch the point to say we have “no paid clergy.”
We also don’t have to read the Book of Mormon in such an anti-clerical way. In my view, the big problem with the Nehors wasn’t that they were paid, it was that in order to satisfy their pride and greed, they told people what they wanted to hear to get paid more: forget about ever repenting, because everyone is already saved — yay! Well, that and the propensity for murder.
To be clear, I’m not saying that GA’s with a living allowance are paid clergy. But if they were, I’d be fine with it.
I very much wish that the Church was more open with its finances, BUT these leaked documents with personal information, that ain’t cool. I’d be pretty ticked if my pay stub ended up online for the whole world to talk about.
The amounts leaked turned out to be a half-millionish less than what some people on the internet had been claiming from their super-secret, super-credible inside sources deep within 50 E North Temple. By not releasing the numbers, the church allowed these people to make up whatever information they wanted, and complain about the church’s lack of transparency. Of course, their super-secret, super-credible COB sources weren’t so transparent either.
I agree with others that we do tend to overdo the whole paid clergy thing, and I can see where people can get the idea that general authorities don’t get any compensation. But there really has been no lack of information on the subject. When I was a missionary back in the Carter Administration, we had a pamphlet entitled “What of the Mormons” that we passed out like candy. The pamphlet said that mission presidents and general authorities receive living allowances.
I know this is tangential to the main points of the post, but I just have to say that I am amazed that anyone would consider a general authority lifestyle to be living the high life. Constantly traveling across multiple time zones, in order to attend church meetings (!), while wearing suits 7 days a week and having to almost live out of suitcases at hotels does not compare favorably to what any of the 70 year olds I personally know do with their time. Their sacrifices are enormous.