Monthly Archives: January 2017

The Profit

I’ve mentioned before that I have two deal breaking issues with the Church.

Do the Brethren see the Lord or not?
And are they or are they not a part of the lay ministry we boast about?

A recent comment on this blog sums up my concern better than I can on the issue of the Brethren’s “special witness.” In part he says:

“I would call the current situation one of ‘deception by omission,’ because the top officers must know that many members believe that divine visitations are common among the higher ranks. The leaders allow this perception to exist and be perpetuated without challenge. Growing up in the church, I was taught by low and mid-level teachers and officers that the first presidency and the apostles know Christ personally, and that divine appearances in the temple are not uncommon.”

This idea of deception by omission, when I first considered it years ago and contemplated its implications, became a turning point for me. That was when the wheels started to fall off my paradigm.

Up until that point, not only did I believe that their witness was literal, but I also believed that they had achieved their witness by possessing strong faith and by having a firm mind in every form of godliness (Moroni 7:30). Which as you know is the pre-requisite for seeing Angels. To see the Lord, the Brethren must practically be Angels… So I thought.

But instead I began to feel mislead. I began to see this issue as an honesty issue. What kind of person would lie or mislead someone about something so sacred!? That idea began to stir in me and caused me tremendous grief.

I became curious about the idea of a lay ministry. Having served as a bishop and in bishoprics and on high councils, I knew first hand that we were not paid. Not at the local level. But as a bishop I began to notice some very strange things about the way certain people in my ward paid tithing. I noticed that General Authorities didn’t pay tithing through the ward at all. For that matter, they didn’t come to me or my counselors for their temple recommends either. Not seeing their tithing, I had no idea whether they were paid by the Church or not.

It wasn’t until I came across the leaked Mission Presidents Handbook that my suspicions on their “non-layness” were confirmed. Interestingly at about the same time I discovered this Handbook, I asked a member of my ward, who I had recommended to serve as a mission president, and who had just received his call, IF this was all true. My friend turned beet red and began to stutter. He eventually said, “I’ve sworn to secrecy that I will not discuss this.”

Well, that confirmed it. I had to then assume that the Brethren above Mission Presidents were also paid. But how much?

Admittedly, I assumed that some of the Brethren had to be paid something. I did not begrudge them some kind of housing, food, and travel assistance. I eased my mind by considering that they likely lived the Law of Consecration — a rumor I had heard many times. It made a lot of sense to me too. After all, if they were meeting with Jesus every Thursday, why would they not be living a higher law? Even if only among themselves.

I envisioned that men like Gary Stevenson would come into the Quorum of the Seventy and would give all they had to the Church. And that anyone among the Seventy or the Twelve that needed some minimal assistance would be able to receive it from the consecrated funds. Someone like Thomas Monson after all would not likely have a valuable pension or social security benefit when he became an apostle at the age of 36.

So to receive “assistance” to live a modest life was never an idea that bothered me.

But then I began to hear rumors that the Brethren were paid exorbitant amounts of money. Like, millions of dollars — Signing bonuses, huge salaries, pay increases for advancement and seniority, black credit cards…

These rumors alarmed me and made me want to know whether I had accidentally lied to all the people I’ve ever told, while holding up a picture of the leaders of the Church, that we were different (better) than all the other churches because “No one in our Church was paid to do anything. It’s a completely lay ministry.”

Back to this idea of “deception by omission” — I was concerned enough as it was about possibly being wrong about the Brethren’s benefits, but now I was confronted with the idea that they let me, in fact, they encouraged me to mislead people by never correcting the record.

Well, in the last few years I’ve been able to confirm a few more details on what our Church leaders make, which has now been corroborated with the most recent news.

Here is my opinion today what they do and don’t make and what benefits I believe they have:

No signing bonuses
No mortgage or debt pay offs
No unlimited Black Amex benefits
No pay increase or pay disparity among the Brethren. Once a 70 or higher, they receive the same “living allowance.”
“Living allowance” is $120,000 per year.
Great health benefits.
Free tuition at BYU or tuition paid at any university for children under age 26 up to the equivalent value of BYU’s tuition cost.
Great life insurance so their family is taken care of when they die.
Car allowances.
House allowances.
All travel, and lodging, food and entertainment while traveling are paid for. This includes First Class airfare.

I’m also left to assume that there is some tax benefit to calling it a living allowance from a 501c3. This is hinted at in the Mission President’s Handbook by the direction given to NOT report these benefits to tax advisors or on a tax return.

Now the argument I hear even from some is that most of these good men were wealthy before their callings and that full time Church service was not only a sacrifice in every way, but also represented a huge pay cut.

This argument is spelled out by Salt Lake Tribune columnist Robert Kirby entitled Wait’ll You See How Much the Mormon Church Pays Me.

I find Kirby’s piece humorous, but I think his overall point is to downplay the amounts the Brethren are paid as kind of a “Well, that’s nowhere near enough money for me” and so no one should have a problem with it. He says:

Now that we seem to know what LDS leaders are paid, it’s still OK with me. I say this because I wouldn’t do it for that much. Not even close.

If you were to pay me for wearing a necktie even to bed, while simultaneously trying to keep people on the straight and narrow without a machine gun, it would have to be at least seven figures, each and every one of them a nine.

I earn a lot less than that as a newspaper columnist. How much? Well, it’s none of your *&#@% business, is it? I do what I do for what I make because it’s an acceptable bargain between myself and a tough editor.

Sadly, I think we Mormons are conditioned to say the kinds of things Kirby says. I actually happen to know thousands of people who WOULD do what these men do and they would do it for FREE! They would do it for the glory, prestige, power, and/or for the value of service. In fact many elderly couples do do this sort of thing for free, without any glory, all the time. The Church sells it to them as a wonderful opportunity to live in Africa for the low low price of only $1400 per month.

Stake presidents and bishops, many or whom work 40-60 hours per week already and then have added to them 20-30 hours of church service, do it for free already Mr. Kirby.

This argument that these men do something special and that they took a pay cut for, frankly, ticks me off. They should want to do it for free. Since when do we need to justify that Apostles of the Lord should be paid large salaries? Most of them are called when they already have pensions and retirements and social security in place. So why are we talking about pay cuts? Do we really want to believe that President Monson, who is paid the equivalent of $240,000 or more a year, WOULD BE MAKING MORE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR? AT AGE 89? I’m sorry but anyone willing to pay Thomas Monson in his current mental state and at his age $240k a year is a complete moron. The argument is disingenuous at best, especially given that we boldly declare that these men are not paid anything.

A great blog post was recently written on this topic. I highly recommend it. In it the author covers the history of minister salaries in the latter-day Church. But, for me the biggest issue is that we all are taught and are encouraged to teach that there is no paid ministry — the Brethren know we teach this — and NO ONE CORRECTS the record. This is a dishonest omission of facts.

Simultaneously Senator Gordon Smith argues in the executive committees of the 12 that the other Christian religions participate in the dangerous practice of priestcraft, all while we are apparently innocent of such abhorrent practices. Why did the Brethren not correct the record with Senator Smith, in that private setting?

I’m sorry my friends, but $120,000 per year in “living allowance” plus all the other great benefits adding up to at least $240,000 per year is a far cry from a lay ministry. I wish the Church would at least be honest about it instead of misleading everyone.

For Alma it was far more cut and dry:

And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to law for our time (Alma 30:33).

Our church leaders have taken millions of senines and yet some of them still profit from their personal enterprises as well. Doesn’t sound like much of a sacrifice to me. It’s certainly not what we preach it to be: A Lay Ministry. In fact, I wonder if LDS Church leaders actually make more than other various religious leaders around the world. Either way, the leaders of the Church should come clean and set the record straight on the issue and allow Church members to decide for themselves if the money we pay them is appropriate or not.

Too Sacred

touch-his-side

In following Mormon tradition that “some things are too sacred to share,” perhaps we should remove from our canon and our speech all references to any man or woman beholding the resurrected Lord. We should eliminate Mary’s testimony from the Garden Tomb. It’s simply too sacred. We should take out the experience of the Road to Emmaus of Cleopas and the unnamed disciple who walked with Him for nearly the whole day where they were taught by their Lord in a way that caused their bosoms to burn within them. As Donald Trump would say, “Take ’em out.” Sacred speech is kind of like hate speech after all because it makes people feel uncomfortable. The story of Stephen as he’s being stoned, seeing the Risen Lord even on the very right hand of God. Saul, meeting the Lord on his way to Damascus. Peter and the Twelve eating with the Lord, who entered the room by walking through a wall. Thomas bowing to kiss His feet and touch His hands after doubting His resurrection.

Then of course there’s the Book of Mormon. Lehi seeing our Father on His Throne. Nephi being taken to a very high mountain by our Lord and becoming a witness to all of His Creation. Jacob who saw Him face to face. Enos, who prayed all day and all night until the Lord called Him Blessed and forgave him of his sins. Alma, Benjamin, Mosiah, Alma the Younger, Ammon, Amulek, Omner, Himni, King Lamoni and his father, and their wives and their households, ALL of whom beheld Him and were taught by Angels and who were redeemed by our Lord. Mormon, Ether, Mohonri, Moroni and many many more. All too sacred.

There is a new and more appropriate, sophisticated way of sharing such experiences:

“There are things simply too sacred to share, but I AM a special witness of Jesus Christ. An apostle. A seer. A revelator. I KNOW He lives.” “As if I had been there…” “I would know Him no more then, than I do now…”

This way, nothing sacred is cast before swine and even better, because you do not provide detail — those listening are able to imagine wonderful and special things in their minds that remain as vague as our doctrines and as boring as our meetings have become.

A Temple

There’s been a lot of discussion of late regarding a new temple fund that both members and non-members are donating to. Before the LDS Church established tithing as the mechanism to pay for temples, “temple funds” were very common.

In the early days of the Church and according to Malachi, tithing was for the purpose of bringing “meat into the storehouse” so as to care for the poor. Whereas a temple fund was for the purpose of building “a” temple. Once that temple was completed (i.e. Kirtland), the temple fund was no longer needed.

Of course today, the Church has decided to bring the temples to the people. This is a subject for a different day, but suffice it to say that this idea does not seem to reconcile with scripture nor with anything Joseph Smith taught. There is no prophecy I know of that says temples will dot the earth, from Joseph, Jesus, or in the Holy Scriptures. The prophecy as I understand it, is to build temples in two places, New and Old Jerusalem.

Understandably there are many who are worried that some random group starting a temple fund seems premature at best and inappropriate (and/or crazy) at worst. After all, “we don’t have the authority to build a temple or to create Zion, that’s the Church’s stewardship”… right?

I can certainly relate to those who have concerns about this project.

On one hand, it’s amazing to think that at some point if we’re lucky enough in our lifetime, a new temple will be built in the New Jerusalem on this the American continent. And a city will be built up to the Most High God called Zion. Like many of you, I’ve yearned for this day and have prayed many times that me and many others would be so lucky to live to see it.

On the other hand, what if this is all a hoax and people are being led astray?

Like many of you, for most of my life I’ve assumed the Church would build both temples in New and Old Jerusalem and would establish Zion.

I used to ask Hugh Nibley (whose ward I belonged to for a brief period) questions about this very topic. I had just read his book Approaching Zion. “What event will cause the Church to move its headquarters to Independence?” I would ask. “Does the Heber C. Kimball prophecy of ‘not even an old yellow dog being left to wag its tail’ need to be fulfilled first?” “Will an earthquake hit Salt Lake City, thus cleansing the inner vessel, and cause the Church to go back to Missouri?”

Brother Nibley was always cordial about my questions but would usually quickly act as though he had other things to do.

My questions and ideas are very different today however.

I do not seek to offend anyone reading this, but I don’t see the Church as currently being capable of building Zion. Nor do I see Zion being in Independence, Missouri. And sadly, I don’t believe that a prophet, like an Isaiah, or a John the Baptist, or Joseph Smith can rise up in leadership in the Church today.

And so how will it work? How will it all happen? How will Zion come to pass and how will a city and temple be built? To be completely honest, I’m not sure. What will the forerunner of the Messiah’s second coming look like? What will he say and do? How many will believe that messenger or those servants that are sent?

I’m generally a skeptic. Like many of you, I’ve been disappointed by men many times before. But if a group of people seek to raise funds to build what they believe will be the Temple of the New Jerusalem, why should I want to stop them? Or want to see them fail?

I’d rather be foolishly trying to support Zion than to accidentally fight against it.

Let’s say for example that the people involved in this project raise $5M and end up running off with the money. Or build some strange building that looks like a compound in Waco, Texas. For me, that would be a great way to see if the Lord is truly in this effort or not. I’m assuming the Church has wasted our money in the past. Why would this be any worse? If this is from God, we will know soon enough (Acts 5:38).

Some of you may be especially sensitive to the concept of church waste since just this last week we discovered that the Church leaders are paid very healthy salaries. At least $120,000 each, putting our “lay ministers” in the top 10% income bracket in the U.S. Add amazing health insurance and life insurance and pensions and social security benefits and reimbursed travel and food and education for their families and book royalties to this package and these “lay ministers” cost us tithe-payers (directly or indirectly – it’s all the same source of money) more than $5 million a year that’s for sure. The saddest part about this is that most of us have been led to believe or have been told that our church leaders are not paid anything. See Thomas Monson website as one example.

So for me, giving to this effort seems to be a no-brainer, especially given that it can be done anonymously. I’d certainly consider giving money to a homeless person to build a house. Or to any sincere group of people trying to raise money to build a synagogue or a church building or Masonic Lodge or a food pantry. No one here is being asked to sacrifice their china, sell their home or their cars. No one is being asked to make a sacrifice that hurts or to even donate at all.

So why not? Why not give to this effort and see what happens? What would be the worst thing that could come from it?

I love the quote from Joseph Smith who said “It is better to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition.” I’d rather give in this case than not, just in case this is the Lord’s project.

In fact, it would be a great strategy for the Church to fund this project. It would be the quickest way to see if this movement is from God or not. The Church donates money to other organizations all the time — to Catholic Charities, the Red Cross, to rodeos, businesses, posh theaters, and to the BSA etc., all of whom by the way, have motives not always aligned with our own, or with the church’s vision of building Zion.

So why not give? What do we have to lose?

If 100,000 people all give $100 to this effort, they’d raise $10,000,000, which I’d think would be enough to buy some land and build a temple. Would you pay $100 to find out if this effort will lead to Zion? I would.

And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be. 1 Nephi 13:37

I Know Nothing

Every so often I hear myself communicating with some measure of implied or assumed authority. I apologize for the times I do. The truth is I really don’t “know” anything or at least I know very little.

Even as a bishop I did not like to say in my testimony that “I know God lives, or that Jesus is the Christ, or that the Book of Mormon is true.” I prefer to say that I believe, perhaps even with all my heart, that such things are true. But I don’t like to say “I know.” The truth is, I only believe most things.

I don’t mean to criticize anyone who believes they do know things. Some of you may “know” much. For me though, I believe, and I want to believe more and receive more and don’t want God to think I have all that I want. I love the example of Abraham who “sought Him earnestly.” This seeking seems to suggest that he did not stop searching. That he was inquisitive and unassuming before meeting the Lord. His reward? “My name is Jehovah…” and the incredible knowledge that followed, not the least of which was the knowledge of God and the receipt of his Exaltation. Or the example of Moses who said:

I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him: for his glory has been upon me, wherefore I can judge between him and thee. Depart hence, Satan.

Too often I think we beat each other over the heads with our testimonies. As a missionary we were instructed at times to dust our feet, so to speak, in leaving our testimonies with someone who disagreed with us. What a mistake that is in my view.

I think the end result for most of us still in the “belief” stage who share our testimonies in this way, or our perceived “knowledge” is to offend the receiver of our words, rather than to convert them.

Sadly, I think we Mormons tend to be very passive aggressive although we may not realize it. I believe one of the chief reasons that we can’t discuss anything in church is due to this tendency we have. I see the same in many comments online, including on this blog.

For many years I found myself arguing with others in gospel discussions, which in looking back I think we can all agree, goes counter to all that the gospel actually is. I think part of my problem was that I often felt threatened by the ideas or decisions of others, especially those I loved. Now I see that I was insecure and full of pride, not full of love, as I had thought. I want to be better at discussing ideas with others and in loving people despite differences of opinion.

I also no longer like it when someone says “The Lord told me to do or say such and such…” Again, I don’t mean to be critical. Most of us have done this to one degree or another. I certainly have. But, again, I think the effect of this practice generally shuts down communication and ends what could be healthy conversations and relationships.

I would so much prefer to hear someone say, “I think the Lord is trying to tell me to do such and such…” Or “I feel very strongly that I’m being guided, but I simply don’t know… I’m acting on faith…”

One of my best friends in life is so good at this. Ironically, I believe he is closer to the Lord than anyone I know. And yet he rarely uses the Lord’s name in such a way. When we discuss gospel ideas, and I know he knows what he’s talking about, he is still very careful to not force his ideas on me with such statements as “the Lord revealed to me that this idea is true… etc.” I love this trait in my friend. He reminds me that anyone’s ideas may have merit and to be careful to not simply dismiss them, even if they are just free lancing as most of us are.

As I look back upon certain statements I’ve made over the years, I’m embarrassed. Perhaps I’ve informed a congregation that the Lord or the Spirit has just revealed something to me. Or that the Lord has told me to call them or that the Spirit told me to go somewhere. Am I doing this to set myself up as a light? To elicit an effect? To make myself look good? To appear more in tune than others? Do I speak with assumed-authority and throw scriptures at people to beat them down instead of lift them up? I’ve been there and still repeat such mistakes. I seek forgiveness.

Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not that we aren’t ever guided. It’s not that the Lord can’t or doesn’t speak to us. But, perhaps often we think He is speaking where He may not be. Or perhaps He is communicating something with us that we simply misunderstand. Or worse, some other force may actually be inspiring us and we think and claim it is the Lord. Why not simply err on the side of complete humility unless the Lord commands otherwise, literally (not maybe).

I seek to engage with others in a way that is more kind and patient and unassuming. Less authoritative. After all, what do most of us really know? We are less than the dust of the earth are we not? We are nothing, which thing perhaps we should begin to suppose.

Now, some of you may be saying “Well, AB what about you and your criticisms of the church and some of its leaders? Isn’t that unkind?” I think that’s a very fair question.

It’s a challenge for me because like many of you, I’ve learned some things about the Church that have been hard to digest. I have experienced something akin to what I’d call the mourning of the loss of something very dear to me. Like most of you, the Church was my identity for almost my entire life.

I spent a few years very angry when I began to realize the Church wasn’t as true as I had thought. Not true to the restoration at least. Not true to Joseph Smith or to the Book of Mormon. Or to the Savior. Or to the truth. And frankly, not true to the poor or to the sick or to those struggling in so many ways.

This discovery for me of truth that had been withheld or perverted inspired some anger, I admit. I don’t feel that way so much anymore. But the mourning stages for me were real and were painful.

An important distinction I make though is that the Brethren AND any other man or woman who claims to be a prophet places a burden upon those in their midst to discern if their message is true or false. Beware of false prophets we are taught! That goes for Thomas or Denver or any human who makes claims of open veils and revelations. It becomes our duty to expose or to believe. It is my understanding that choosing wrongly, leads us to unbelief and misjudgment, things we will held accountable for.

I’m always reminded of how hard it must have been to believe Joseph was a true messenger. Even many of those who first believed, ended up betraying him in the end. Are we any different or better? And then what about John the Baptist? Or Jesus? Even the Son of God came in such a way that most did not believe His message. It must have been even worse for Isaiah and Jeremiah and Lehi and Nephi and all the other holy prophets.

So if I am critical and am sinning, I ask for your forgiveness. For God’s forgiveness. But for now, I believe it is my duty to discern and expose and/or believe and share. I don’t do so with any authority and I attempt to only do so in an unassuming way — in a way that hopefully helps others seek the Lord, and not men. Certainly to not follow men in an idolatrous way as we are so prone to do.

I am hopeful that this year God will bless us to love better and to grow in greater light and knowledge. Especially those of us who claim or think we are awake. Who are here reading these blogs. I hope that as we discuss these things together it can be in a way that is thoughtful and profound. So much is at stake in discovering the truth and in being redeemed.

God bless us all in 2017,