FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormonism and church finances/No paid ministry
No paid Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") ministrySummary: It is claimed that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.
Jump to Subtopic:
- Question: What do the scriptures teach about paid ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ?
- Question: Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints employ a professional clergy?
- Question: Is the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others receive a living stipend while serving the Church evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church?
- Question: Why do General Authorities receive living stipends?
- Question: Do General Authorities receive a large sum of money when they are called in order to "keep them quiet"?
- Question: Do General Authorities sign a non-disclosure agreement promising to never divulge what they are paid?
- Question: Who is the highest-paid Church employee in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Question: What do the scriptures teach about paid ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ?
Having a paid clergy is not in and of itself a terrible thing. Problems arise when the issue of money becomes a greater motivator than the things of God
The scriptures mention circumstances in which a paid ministry is appropriate, and also provide several cautions about the practice.
Having a paid clergy is not in and of itself a terrible thing. Problems arise when the issue of money becomes a greater motivator than the things of God (and this can happen to any member). So the members support those who are engaged full time in the work of the Church if necessary, but we also do not have a system where one can simply choose to become one of these full-time workers (for example, by getting a degree and looking for a job as a clergyman). This lack of a professional clergy acts as one of the checks on helping to make sure that it is not the financial reward that drives those who serve in the church.
New Testament: "who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?"
In general, the most explicit statement about it comes from 1 Corinthians 9:7-12:
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
The King James language can be a bit archaic; the NIV translation of the last two verses (13 and 14) may be more clear:
13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
Most of the early members had a real distrust of paid clergy
Within the church, we often tend to forget that the context for the "unpaid" aspect of the church goes back to general distrust of paid clergy at the time the church was formed (in 1830), which stemmed largely from a Protestant view of Catholicism—so most of the early members had a real distrust of paid clergy.
Within the lifetime of Joseph Smith it became apparent that you cannot have a religious organization with individuals who are devoted to the work of that organization (full time) without finding a way to provide for their material needs (and there were swings of opinion as to the extent that the church could or should support individuals even in the first couple of decades). The New Testament verse that they used to justify helping support some leaders in the early LDS Church was Luke 10:7, whose language was reflected in D&C 70:12 –
- Luke 10:7: “And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.”
- D&C 70:12: “He who is appointed to administer spiritual things, the same is worthy of his hire, even as those who are appointed to a stewardship to administer in temporal things;”
The Doctrine and Covenants Student manual notes:
In addition to his many responsibilities in the Church, Joseph Smith had a family, and he could not neglect them, although his responsibility was chiefly a spiritual one. Although not completely relieved from responsibility for his temporal needs at that time, the Prophet was told by the Lord to look to the Church for temporal support. Elder Bruce R. McConkie commented about those who are asked to give full-time service to the Church:“All our service in God’s kingdom is predicated on his eternal law which states: ‘The laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.’ (2 Nephi 26:31.)
“We know full well that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and that those who devote all their time to the building up of the kingdom must be provided with food, clothing, shelter, and the necessaries of life. We must employ teachers in our schools, architects to design our temples, contractors to build our synagogues, and managers to run our businesses. But those so employed, along with the whole membership of the Church, participate also on a freewill and voluntary basis in otherwise furthering the Lord’s work. Bank presidents work on welfare projects. Architects leave their drafting boards to go on missions. Contractors lay down their tools to serve as home teachers or bishops. Lawyers put aside Corpus Juris and the Civil Code to act as guides on Temple Square. Teachers leave the classroom to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions. Musicians who make their livelihood from their artistry willingly direct church choirs and perform in church gatherings. Artists who paint for a living are pleased to volunteer their services freely.”
Temporal support from the members is probably only part of what is implied in these verses, however. The members were encouraged to support and sustain the Prophet in every possible way.
Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as priestcraft
Perhaps the most explicit scriptural statement about this issue from a negative perspective comes from 2 Nephi 26:31 (cited above).
Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as priestcraft, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see 2 Nephi 26:29). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see Alma 1:12,16, 3 Ne 16:10, 3 Ne 21:19, 3 Ne 30:2, D&C 33:4). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.
The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see Mosiah 2:14). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.
Many people of other faiths admirably desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so
Many people of other faiths admirably desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so. Most clergy live on subsistence level wages. Principles of priestcrafts apply equally to these people as to our own leadership. The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel solely from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see 1 Peter 5:2). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching for the sake of getting gain while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see 2 Nephi 26:29. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.
Question: Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints employ a professional clergy?
There can be no doubt that the Church does have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a professional clergy
Some claim that because some of the General Authorities and mission presidents receive a living stipend, the Church's claim to have no paid ministry is false.
There can be no doubt that the Church does have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a professional clergy.
- the Church does not graduate individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
- the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
- Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
- the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
- those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance, have already served for many years in unpaid volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
- the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations if they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."
- the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see DC 42:71-73).
- General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.
Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).
Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.
Critics may be impossible to satisfy
If provision did not exist for allowing those who are not "independently wealthy" to provide full-time Church service, critics might well then complain that the Church "favors the rich" because it would not allow those of lesser means to serve. Without some mechanism for providing for the needs of those giving full-time service, only the worldly elite would be able to serve. This factor becomes increasingly important as the Church expands out of North America, especially into nations in the Southern Hemisphere who are less materially well-off than the industrialized west.
Question: Is the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others receive a living stipend while serving the Church evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church?
The Church does not train or employ a professional clergy
It is claimed that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church. 
- Church leaders are "called" by leaders in greater authority to occupy positions such as Bishop, Stake President, or Area Authority 70. One does not campaign for nor apply for such positions, and such an effort would undoubtedly be considered grounds for disqualifications to serve in such a significant role. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." (A+of+F 1:5) What is more, those who fill these positions are not compensated.
- No tithing funds provide for General Authorities' living stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.
- The Latter-day Saint practice of not paying our ecclesiastical leaders is not evidence of the truthfulness of the Church. As with other issues, the real question regarding the "truthfulness" of the Church hinges on the endowment of priesthood keys and authority on those who lead the Church. Temporal matters and how they are handled are governed by spiritual principles. Leaders who serve faithfully should be sustained regardless of their personal finances or needs for modest financial assistance.
There can be no doubt that the Church does have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a professional clergy. Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service.
Some General Authorities receive a modest living stipend
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a professional ministry in the traditional sense.
Receiving a living stipend does not qualify as priestcraft
Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as priestcraft, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see 2 Nephi 26:29). However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support.
Church employees are not compensated for ecclesiastical service
While a small number of Church members seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System as instructors, they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or service. No tithing funds are used to pay Church employees. Their salaries come from church investments in companies that deal with real estate like Deseret Management Corporation and Deseret Ranches, communications (TV, radio, Internet) like Bonneville Communications and Deseret News, and property management and services like Zion's Securities Corporation and Temple Square Hospitality.
Question: Why do General Authorities receive living stipends?
Gordon B. Hinckley: "the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people
Some members of the Church are unaware that some General Authorities receive a modest stipend as a living allowance. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the Church has a professional ministry in the traditional sense.
Calls to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy are calls to “for-life” positions, members of the Twelve serving full-time until they die and members of the First Quorum of Seventy serving full-time until retirement to emeritus status at age seventy. At the present time, calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, so those who serve in these positions do not receive the living allowances.
The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:
Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.
I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.
I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.
The stipend has also been discussed many other times in the past
Conference reports published during 1940s and 1950s and 1960s always included financial reports; part of this was a "Church Disbursements," of which the first item read:
Office of the Corporation of the President: Including salaries of 49 employees: expenses of office; equipment; maintenance of the Administration Building; and the living allowances and traveling expenses of the General Authorities, all of which are covered by non-tithing income.
In 1979 it was common knowledge for a non-member to wonder about why a successful banker would settle for the modest "living allowance":
In Honolulu a few months ago I boarded a plane, sat in my seat, and was strapping myself in when a man sat by my side. I introduced myself to him and extended my hand in a greeting of good fellowship. He was of Japanese extraction, spoke impeccable English, and explained that he was on his way to Boise, Idaho, to attend a bank directors’ meeting. Immediately I was curious.
“Which bank?” I queried.
“Citizens National,” he replied.
“Then you must be acquainted with Martin Zachreson, who is mission president in Southern California for the Mormon Church.”
“Yes,” he said. “ I wondered why he would leave the position of chairman of the board of a successful bank to serve as a mission president for a mere living allowance.”
As you can imagine, that opened a door that I was anxious to walk through. So I asked, “May I explain to you?”
We have seen above President Hinckley's discussion in the mid-1980s.
In the early 1990s, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (prepared in conjunction with the Church) noted:
Unlike local leaders, who maintain their normal vocations while serving in Church assignments, General Authorities set aside their careers to devote their full time to the ministry of their office. The living allowance given General Authorities rarely if ever equals the earnings they sacrifice to serve full-time in the Church.
In 2011, the Church's official magazine noted:
Serving as a mission president is both a challenging and a spiritually exhilarating three-year assignment. In dedicating themselves to this call, many couples essentially put their old lives on hold, including their jobs and families.
The interruption to professional employment can in some cases mean financial loss. While the Church provides mission presidents with a minimal living allowance, the couples usually have the financial means to supplement that allowance with their own funds.
In a 2013 manual for Church teens, the text indicates:
In our day, General Authorities of the Church give up their livelihoods to serve full-time, so they receive a modest living allowance—enough for them to support themselves and their families.
Why is it appropriate for Church leaders who are called to full-time service to receive compensation for their needs?
If there were no stipends, only the wealthy could serve
If the Church did not provide living allowances, then only those who were independently wealthy would qualify for Church service. Some critics would doubtless be troubled by this scenario, and would probably then claim that the Church exalted wealth and personal prosperity, and would not allow any without it to serve.
Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions from which they make a substantial living
Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, these leaders live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service.
Michael Otterson, formerly head of Church Public Affairs, observed:
I can hardly believe it when I hear people question the motives of the Brethren for the work they do, or when they imply there is somehow some monetary reward or motive.
Let me share the reality. Not all the Brethren have been businessmen, but most have had extraordinarily successful careers by the time they are called to be an apostle. As President Spencer W. Kimball once pointed out, the ability to lead people and an organization is a more-than-helpful attribute in a Church of millions of people, especially when combined with spiritual depth and a rich understanding of the gospel. Because several have been highly successful in business careers, when they become apostles their stipend and allowances may literally be less than a tithe on what they previously earned.
Some of the Brethren have been educators. Elder Scott was a nuclear physicist, Elder Nelson a heart surgeon. Several were highly successful lawyers. Right now we have three former university presidents in the Twelve. President Boyd K. Packer was also an educator by profession, although in his spare time and in his earlier days he loved to carve beautiful things out of wood. That sounds curiously related to another scripturally honored profession — that of a carpenter.
Can you imagine what it would be like to be called to the Twelve? In most cases you have already had a successful career. You know you will continue to serve the Church in some volunteer capacity, but you have begun to think of your future retirement. The First Presidency and the Twelve, of course, do not retire. Neither are they released. With their call comes the sure knowledge that they will work every day for the rest of their lives, even if they live into their 90s, until they literally drop and their minds and bodies give out. Their workday begins early and does not end at 5:00 p.m. The Twelve get Mondays off, and those Mondays are frequently spent preparing for the rest of the week. If they have a weekend assignment, they will often travel on a Friday afternoon. Periodically, even though in their 80s, they face the grueling schedule of international speaking conferences and leadership responsibilities.
What about when they are home? I have the cell phone numbers of most of the Brethren because I sometimes have to call them in the evening, on weekends or when they are out and about. I’m not naïve enough to think that I am the only Church officer to do so. So even their downtime is peppered with interruptions. I invariably begin those calls by apologizing for interrupting them at home. I have never once been rebuked for calling. They are invariably kind and reassuring, even early in the morning or late at night.
Their primary time off each year is from the end of the mission presidents’ seminar at the very end of June through the end of July. And while this time is meant as a break, most of the Brethren use this time to turn their thoughts, among other things, to October general conference and preparation of their remarks. During Christmas break they do the same for April conference. Every one of them takes extraordinary care and time in deciding on a topic and crafting their messages. The process weighs on them for months as they refine draft after draft.
This is not a schedule you would wish on anyone. Yet they bear it with grace and find joy for some overwhelmingly important reasons — their testimony and commitment to be a witness of the Savior of the world and their desire to strengthen His children everywhere. They would be the very first to acknowledge their own faults or failings, just as we can readily point to the apostles of the New Testament and see imperfect people.
In 1996, the stipend was in the neighborhood of $50,000 per year. In 2014 it was increased from $116,400 to $120,000
In 1996, the church altered some of the responsibilities given to General Authorities. Prior to this point in time, they also served on corporate boards of church-owned companies and for these positions they received a stipend. At that point in time, some of the financial information was disclosed, indicating that the stipend was in the neighborhood of $50,000.00 a year.
To give a sense of proper comparison, US Department of Labor statistics list the 1996 average salary of a civil engineer at $52,750, that of a computer programmer at $50,490, and that of the average junior college teacher at $49,200. Therefore, the living allowance, which provides for most of the normal day-to-day expenses of a full-time authority and his family (including house payments, personal transportation, food, clothing, entertainment, etc.), is in line with that of a professional employee. It is far lower than the large management salaries that might be expected for someone with the skills that these General Authorities must have and the responsibilities that they must shoulder.
Question: Do General Authorities receive a large sum of money when they are called in order to "keep them quiet"?
Claims that General Authorities receive large "hush money" payments are pure speculation with little data
This type of criticism seems intended to imply that General Authorities perform their duties out of greed, rather than sincere belief. This seems implausible, given that most are at or beyond retirement age when called, and many have been highly successful outside of Church service.
- Non-disclosure agreements are standard practice with regard to salary and compensation.
- The numbers suggested have consistently escalated over time, despite an absence of hard data.
- Those who provide such accounts attempt to make normal practices seem nefarious or hidden.
- The Church has not hidden the fact that general authorities receive a stipend, and there is scriptural warrant for the practice.
These kinds of speculations as to money received almost always comes from disaffected and former members, and involves large round numbers such as $300,000, $500,000 or $1,000,000
They all claim (in true conspiracy theory fashion) to have an inside source. They always make claims with no evidence - and use nice big eye-catching round numbers such as $300,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, and so on. Should the church provide some data, it would almost certainly be dismissed as a cover up of the truth (protected of course by those NDAs, right?). There may be a lot of reasons why people become General Authorities, but it seems doubtful that getting wealthy is one of them. You would think, with hundreds of General Authorities, all supposedly getting excessive payments from the church (as the allegations go) for the last century, there might have been some sort of financial scandal that the critics could pin their speculations to. But it doesn't seem like it, does it?
Question: Do General Authorities sign a non-disclosure agreement promising to never divulge what they are paid?
It is highly likely that General Authorities sign a non-disclosure agreement
Not only do many of the employees of BYU sign such non-disclosure agreements, but, those who have access to this information are also required to sign such agreements. Generally speaking, these agreements allow organizations to sue for damages when a breach of confidentiality occurs. The major point here, though, is that if general authorities are given a stipend (for living expenses), it is quite possible that the stipend comes with a non-disclosure agreement (an NDA). This would be the "contract promising never to divulge to anyone what they are paid". Of course, it is presented in a way that makes all sorts of insinuations. But probably if such a thing exists and happens, it follows the standard boiler plate legal language used elsewhere by the Church's legal team to handle the same issue. That contract wouldn't actually list the compensation, and so while this person may have seen the NDA, we can be certain that they have no personal knowledge of what the compensation actually is. The $300,000.00 figure is just being tossed out with no real evidence behind it, save anonymous hearsay.
Now, what is the point of this sort of agreement? Mentioning the NDA in this kind of discussion is intended by the critic to demonstrate that something nefarious is going on. That is, we are meant to conclude that the Church is covering a big secret of some sort with the use of NDAs.
A non-disclosure agreement does not guarantee secrecy
This, however, doesn't make much sense. One problem with an NDA is that in order to get relief the injured party must sue. And in suing, the contract itself would become part of the court case, and potentially available for public scrutiny. If the objective is complete secrecy, then the concept of an NDA utterly defeats the purpose in this case. Not only would it open up hidden information for public consumption, it would also tend to confirm whatever had been said by the general authority who offered information. This would only be some sort of problem if the church was trying to hide something. And so if the church is trying to hide payments to general authorities, then the whole process of having a NDA creates far more problems than it would solve.
Question: Who is the highest-paid Church employee in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
The head football coach at Brigham Young University is likely the highest paid employee
Who is the highest paid church employee? As of 2014, it is probably Bronco Mendenhall (the head football coach at BYU). His base salary is estimated to be at least $900,000 a year. With incentives and bonuses, it could be as high as $2,000,000.00 per year. Even at 2 million a year, he would only rank 59th (of 126) college football coaches (a lot to us individuals, not excessive by the narrow standard of his peers).
Of course, nobody is really quite sure how much he makes because, like most employees of BYU, Bronco Mendenhall has signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) about his salary. And being that he works for a private university, you cannot simply request this information. This is, by the way, standard practice for private universities in particular, but its also true of most private entities. Organizations where salary information is widely available are usually managed by group contracts and are often unionized. The Church does not fit that particular mold. The business side of the Church (and its corporate employees) follow business practices that recommend these kinds of NDAs.
- Bruce R. McConkie, Conference Report (Apr. 1975), 77.; or "Obedience, Consecration, and Sacrifice," Ensign (May 1975), 52.
- Articles of Faith 1:5
- Mosiah 27:5
- Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," Deseret Morning News (30 September 2006).
- Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry," (accessed April 28, 2008); Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?" (accessed April 28, 2008).
- Gordon B. Hinckley, "Questions and Answers," Ensign (November 1985), 49.
- This example is from Conference Report (6-8 April 1945), 18.
- Royden G. Derrick, "The True Value System," BYU address (15 May 1979).
- Marvin K. Gardner, "General Authorities," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992).
- Heather Whittle Wrigley, "New Mission Presidents Blessed for Exercise of Faith," Liahona (December 2011). See also an on-line "Church News" feature which reproduces this material from 1 July 2011.
- Unit 15: Day 4, D&C 69-71," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students (Salt Lake City, UT: Intellectual Reserve, 2013).
- "FULL TRANSCRIPT: Michael Otterson addresses FairMormon Conference," lds.org (7 August 2015).
- Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," Deseret Morning News (30 September 2006).
- http://www.coacheshotseat.com/SalariesContracts.htm (accessed 28 March 2014)