$$$$

[_Pahoran]

After George P. Lee was excommunicated, a story was done about it in one of Salt Lake City's newspapers. It mentioned, in passing, Lee's comment about how tough it was to have to give up his church-issued credit card with its unlimited spending account.

So it came out that GAs receive, at the church's dime, an unlimited spending account. How sweet would that be?

And more importantly, how believeable is it?

Answer: it isn't.

Call for references, please. Bluntly, I don't believe it.

It's been a long time, and the Salt Lake Tribune archives only go back to 1998. The best I could come up with was a partial quote preserved at this site.

And here's the quote:

Another puzzling aspect of Mormonism is that there is no accounting to the membership of church funds. They are never informed as to the amount of the "modest living allowance" given to their top leaders. In the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 1983, the salary given to a Seventy (second tier of LDS General Authorities, lower than an Apostle) was reported to be $40,000. Obviously, with inflation this salary would be much higher today. If housing is factored in (as in the case of the president of the church) the salary would be quite substantial. When George P. Lee, former Seventy, was terminated in 1989, the LDS Church immediately confiscated his church credit card (Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 10, 1989). We are left to wonder about what other benefits go with "full-time Church service." For more information on LDS wealth see Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, by Richard and Joan Ostling.

Funny there's no mention of the "unlimited" credit it allowed. I wonder why, given the premise of the page in question, if that's what really was under discussion?

And what is a "church credit card?" That would seem to be a credit card used to buy stuff on behalf of the Church. A lady recently joined the Church in my ward, who had been an officer in another church. They had likewise entrusted her with a church credit card, to buy stuff on behalf of that church. She was likewise expected to return it. (Why wouldn't she be? She's no longer an officer in that church, just as Mr. Lee was no longer an officer in ours.) How is this different?

Notice how you have improved the story in the retelling: a "church credit card" becomes a personal perquisite of limitless scope. Do you really believe this?

The notion that anyone would have a credit card, for their own personal use, with "an unlimited spending account" is simply absurd. Why would they then need a measly $70k? This assertion requires a serious amount of gullibility to accept. The sort of gullibility that needs to be set alongside all the anti-Mormon/ex-Mormon claims of "critical thinking" and such.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

The notion that anyone would have a credit card, for their own personal use, with "an unlimited spending account" is simply absurd. Why would they then need a measly $70k? This assertion requires a serious amount of gullibility to accept. The sort of gullibility that needs to be set alongside all the anti-Mormon/ex-Mormon claims of "critical thinking" and such.

Regards,
Pahoran

You don't know this, Pahoran. No one does. The books AREN'T OPEN! What we know is that in 1959, the GA's were such poor stewards of the tithes and offerings, THEY CLOSED THE BOOKS! And they haven't been open since. Our ancestors would likely be very upset, but we're so gullible, we take their word for it.

[_ajax18]

It comes down to this for me. I've always had a problem with religious leaders who live much better than the average tithe payer supporting them be they Catholic, Jerry Fallwell, Mormon, whoever. The only response I've heard is that the apostles are paid so much because they could make much more money if they were working rather than serving in Church. To me that just doesn't cut it.

Are you telling me that you think it's ok that they're paid around 100k annually with free housing Pahoran because they could be making more, are you saying you don't believe they make a lot more than even the average U.S. tithe payer?

[_Pahoran]

It comes down to this for me. I've always had a problem with religious leaders who live much better than the average tithe payer supporting them be they Catholic, Jerry Fallwell, Mormon, whoever. The only response I've heard is that the apostles are paid so much because they could make much more money if they were working rather than serving in Church. To me that just doesn't cut it.

Are you telling me that you think it's ok that they're paid around 100k annually with free housing Pahoran because they could be making more, are you saying you don't believe they make a lot more than even the average U.S. tithe payer?

No, I don't believe they do.

I believe that many of them did, before they received their calls. You know, the calls that required them to give up their university presidencies or professorships, or their senior executive positions at major companies, such as an international airline, or their senior medical, legal or other professional positions; or otherwise to straightway leave their nets and follow him.

But nobody has led a shred of evidence that they "live much better than the average tithe payer supporting them." In fact, nobody has shown any evidence that the tithes do support them; for the very good and sufficient reason that they don't. Their living allowances are funded by Church-owned businesses. We know that these are doing quite well, because they also funded the mall investments that have caused so much spiteful comment of late.

The brethren are called to leave their chosen professions at virtually a moment's notice, and spend the rest of their lives in Church service. Except for the five-year-term GA's, there is no provision for them to retire. They will not move to Tahiti and lie around on the beach; they will die in the traces.

Will you?

And no, the brethren don't get "free housing," either. Only the President of the Church does; and he's required to do that, for security reasons.

The day may come when more of the brethren are so required, and the kind of hatred that is spread abroad from places like this may hasten that day; but it hasn't come yet.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Mary]

I used to be the treasurer for a very small charity. In the UK all Charities whose accounts (Income or expenditure) exceed £10,000 MUST by law submit accounts to the Charity Commission. This from 2005.

This is interesting, because there really is NO excuse for late submission's. Charities are really given plenty of time to submit.



Enforcing Submission of Annual Returns and Accounts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
1. This is a statement of the results of a number of Inquiries under Section 8 of the Charities Act 1993.

2. This report sets out the main issues arising from ongoing work undertaken by the Commission enforcing the submission of Annual Returns and Accounts.

Issues
3. Trustees of every registered charity with an annual income or expenditure of more than £10,000 are required by law to complete an Annual Return form and submit it, together with the charity's Accounts and Annual Report, to the Commission. This must be done within ten months of the charity's financial year-end.

4. Following the Commission's enforcement procedure, trustees had failed to submit the Annual Returns and/ or Accounts and Annual Report for the charity. Inquiries were opened into the following charities to consider matters more fully:

Name (Registered Charity No)

Agre Dekallo (1059618)
Anka Day Nursery (1044595)
Beacon Trust (230087)
Bethnal Green Youth Consortium (1072616)
Church Estate (255619)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Great Britain), The (242451)
Corby & District Volunteer Bureau (1063966)
Easton Community Association (1026586)
Freightliners Farm Limited (1014216)
Gravesend Grammar School for Boys School Fund (298986)
Hanover Band Trust, The (276938)
Heart Attack Aftercare Association (1045717)
Institute of the Presentation Brothers (233466)
Kings Church Kingston Trust, The (1046210)
Lichfield Diocesan Board of Education, The (528561)
Newport Playgoers' Society (232628)
Paint Pots Playgroup (Macclesfield) (1035969)
Power of Anointing Ministry Trust, The (1018636)
R S Charitable Trust (1053660)
Ruth and Conrad Morris Charitable Trust (276864)
S & B Charitable Trust (1086595)
Schools' J-Link (1062551)
Society for the Promotion of Artistic & Creative Enterprise Foundation, The (1050721)
Songbrook Limited (287754)
South Park Recreation Ground (1087495)
St. Helens Coalition of Disabled People (1093297)
Torah and Chesed (BH) Limited (276325)
Town Estate, The (219164)
West Billericay Community Association (1055830)

[Schreech]

Looks like they got it in eventually for 2006 (or is it 2005) though

Here it is on PDF http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/re ... 31_e_c.pdf

It actually makes for very interesting reading. Particularly the last few pages.

[_Mercury]

Does anyone know of a GA's itinerary being made public. You could probably get an idea of how much is spent on them per week by knowing what all they'e doing.

Of course, then you have to figure in all the X-factors:

First class, business, or coach.

Hotel suite, double, or single bed.

Gourmet or continental breakfast.

Boxers or briefs or....nevermind

Bond

If anyone knows that the GA's are staying in a specific hotel in a specific area I can confirm through my channels. I can't for obvious reasons mention this.

FYI...i have contacts in the hospitality business...cough......cough

Care to expound on that? Por que?

Bond

[_maklelan]

Does anyone have any idea how much GAs are paid in the LDS church? I know their housing is paid by the church and they probably have a nice medical plan. Would it be fair to say that some of them live much better than the average U.S. tithe payer at the Church's expense and not due to any previous personal financial gain?

The GAs receive a yearly stipend that is somewhere in the neighborhood of $70,000, on top of all the other expenses that are paid for by the Church. It would most definitely be "fair" to say that they live a good deal better, financially speaking, than the average US tithe payer. Prior to the 1980s and 90s, most of them had cushy, CEO-type positions that provided them with huge salaries. Obviously, this made it seem as if they were using their high station in the Church in order to get rich. SWK set the example by giving up his position, and urged the rest of the Brethren to do the same, something that didn't happen for another fifteen years or so, mostly due to the fact that the Brethren enjoyed being rich. Of course, they still make extra money from their speaking engagements, and from booksales, so by and large, most of them do extremely well.

The TBM counterargument to this usually had something to do with the fact that all of the GAs could be making a whole lot more money in the secular world, or that the GAs have such a tough job that the 70 thou seems like small potatoes---basically anything that will play down the fact that these men have a good deal of wealth, and an enormous amount of power, and that this is a "reward," so to speak, of their ecclesiastical callings.

1) Many GA's live the law of consecration.

2) Would you mind providing a source for your figures, because my sources say something different.

3) Most of their wealth is the result of a lifetime of hard work and saving.

It's funny, I told someone once that my mission president had to pay for everything while he served, accept for small travel expenses that were reimbursed him. I was then subjected to heavy criticism because my church makes their higher ups pay their own way during their times of service. Now someone throws out a figure and smirks as he speculates on how members of the church reconcile such a disgusting and embarrassing fact with their testimonies that general authorities are decent people. Oh, the shame. These people give up their lives for the church and you're critical because they receive a stipend?!? You'll criticize anything you can about the church, won't you?

[_maklelan]

The notion that anyone would have a credit card, for their own personal use, with "an unlimited spending account" is simply absurd. Why would they then need a measly $70k? This assertion requires a serious amount of gullibility to accept. The sort of gullibility that needs to be set alongside all the anti-Mormon/ex-Mormon claims of "critical thinking" and such.

Regards,
Pahoran

You don't know this, Pahoran. No one does. The books AREN'T OPEN! What we know is that in 1959, the GA's were such poor stewards of the tithes and offerings, THEY CLOSED THE BOOKS! And they haven't been open since. Our ancestors would likely be very upset, but we're so gullible, we take their word for it.

Uh, actually, I do. My mission president (who sealed my wife and me) was over all of tithing and over the church welfare system for nine years, and while I was financial secretary he trained me on everything, including how the church keeps track of spending records of everyone. I had to fix a big problem one time and he told me one of the fastest ways to get a church disciplinary council brought against you is to mess with the church's funds. He told me what everyone is and isn't allowed to spend money on, and a bunch of other cool things. You guys can speculate all you want and throw all kinds of numbers all over the place, but you're all just entertaining yourselves. There's actually nothing strange or dramatic about anything that goes on behind those doors you speculate so much about.

[_Mercury]

...one of the fastest ways to get a church disciplinary council brought against you is to mess with the church's funds.

Wow, this statement is so ironic I think you just burned out the irony quotient of the universe.