DiscussMormonism.com

...in the UK.

In 2010 the Church spent £35,931,000 of donated monies in some of the following ways:

£11.6 million on staff wages of which:
£4.2 million for staff related to the 'provision of worship facilities' - which includes Temple President salaries.
£3.2 million for staff related to 'religious education'.
£3.4 million for staff related to 'genealogy work'.
£0.5 million for staff related to 'missionary work' - which I think is almost exclusively Mission President salaries.
£0.25 million for staff related to 'community projects'.

So, a third of all money donated by members in the UK goes towards paying staff salaries.
This does not include the travel costs for these 'staff' which amounted to a further £1.3 million in expenditure.

Let's look at how those numbers of staff (including Directors) are split:
Teaching Function - 27 people
Office Administration - 227 people
Building Cleaners - 174 people (who have subsequently been replaced by f.o.c. member cleaners)

That's a total of 428 people (down 28 from the previous year) equating to an average salary of £27,168. Compared to the UK national average for that year which was £20,801.

Glad to see the Church pays well there.

There are six UK missions, so I guess that works out to 83,000 pounds per mission president, plus furnished home, car, and other expenses paid? Not too shabby.

Buffalo wrote:There are six UK missions, so I guess that works out to 83,000 pounds per mission president, plus furnished home, car, and other expenses paid? Not too shabby.

There is no evidence that these funds are exclusive to a mission president, nor that those funds are exclusive of the money spent for "home, car, etc.."

subgenius wrote:

Buffalo wrote:There are six UK missions, so I guess that works out to 83,000 pounds per mission president, plus furnished home, car, and other expenses paid? Not too shabby.

There is no evidence that these funds are exclusive to a mission president, nor that those funds are exclusive of the money spent for "home, car, etc.."

The mission home is provided for them, at the very least.

What other mission personnel are there on the payroll? Missionaries provide auxiliary function work for free.

Did you serve a mission, subgenius?

Buffalo wrote:The mission home is provided for them, at the very least.

again, the cost of which has neither been included or excluded from the amount you have assumed, nor has that amount been proven to actually be distributed in the manner by which Drift admittedly "assumes"...which in this context, is another word for "i guess".

subgenius wrote:

Buffalo wrote:The mission home is provided for them, at the very least.

again, the cost of which has neither been included or excluded from the amount you have assumed, nor has that amount been proven to actually be distributed in the manner by which Drift admittedly "assumes"...which in this context, is another word for "i guess".

So you didn't serve a mission?

Because if you had, you might know that the homes provided for mission presidents aren't cheap. My presidents' residence could best be described as "palatial."

If the church is, as you're suggesting, spending money on church real estate but claiming it as money going to staff, then they're engaged in accounting fraud. Is that the argument you really want to go with?

Buffalo wrote:
So you didn't serve a mission?

Because if you had, you might know that the homes provided for mission presidents aren't cheap. My presidents' residence could best be described as "palatial."

If the church is, as you're suggesting, spending money on church real estate but claiming it as money going to staff, then they're engaged in accounting fraud. Is that the argument you really want to go with?

Our mission home was a 3 story + basement home in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Budapest.

As my mission was concluding, the church was constructing a huge multipurpose building for the mission president to live in, located just off of Moscow Square, one of the busiest mass transit hubs in the city, where real estate is at a premium. (I don't think they call it Moscow Square anymore though...Ludwigm might know what it was renamed.)

Of course the president (whom I liked very much, and still do) had a maid and a cook.

aranyborju wrote:

Buffalo wrote:
So you didn't serve a mission?

Because if you had, you might know that the homes provided for mission presidents aren't cheap. My presidents' residence could best be described as "palatial."

If the church is, as you're suggesting, spending money on church real estate but claiming it as money going to staff, then they're engaged in accounting fraud. Is that the argument you really want to go with?

Our mission home was a 3 story + basement home in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Budapest.

As my mission was concluding, the church was constructing a huge multipurpose building for the mission president to live in, located just off of Moscow Square, one of the busiest mass transit hubs in the city, where real estate is at a premium. (I don't think they call it Moscow Square anymore though...Ludwigm might know what it was renamed.)

Of course the president (whom I liked very much, and still do) had a maid and a cook.

My presidents had servants too. I don't know if they payed them out of pocket or if the church payed their salaries.

subgenius wrote:

Buffalo wrote:There are six UK missions, so I guess that works out to 83,000 pounds per mission president, plus furnished home, car, and other expenses paid? Not too shabby.

There is no evidence that these funds are exclusive to a mission president, nor that those funds are exclusive of the money spent for "home, car, etc.."

Who else receives a salary out of tithing funds who is classed as working in the area of 'missionary work'?