Joseph Smith Rings

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He wouldn't have paid the cost of the mission home (the church owns the property), travel expenses (except for family travel) or utilities. He would have had to pay the cost of maintaining his home in the US and any other bills he had to pay from back home, and he would have had to do it all with no income. He also would have paid for all food while on the mission (and I believe all fuel consumption as well). If he wanted an additional vehicle on the mission (aside from the generally single church vehicle provided), he would have had to pay for that too.

As such, I don't see how this represents a sizeable increase in expenditures for a retired individual.

[RockyBalboa]

My Dad was called to be a Mission President just before he retired working for the church, but was unable to go because of health reasons...and my parents were far from well off, so I wouldn't have a problem if Mission Presidents got a little something $$ wise dependent upon their needs of course.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't think there is much of a distinction between an allowance and being paid. Either way, you get money. They church system is based on need/assignment. Once that is determined, they get more or less a set amount each month (like a salary). The difference between an allowance as the church uses it and a salary is marginal at best.

I don't have a problem with any of this either (and don't understand why you find it "hurtful"). They need money to live and the church gives it to them. Problem solved. In fact, I would argue that the SHOULD be paying mission presidents in order to make it possible for the non-wealthy to serve in that capacity. The church is seriously limiting the pool of mission president candidates by only having the wealthy available for selection.

Hmmm... I am not so sure about that. A good friend of mine was just called to be mission president in Russia. Given where he works, their home, and the cars they drive, I can guarantee you that he is not wealthy. Not by a long shot. I guess I will have to probe a bit and see if he will give me some details.

[MikeWaters]

My former hometeaching companion (when I was a deacon or so) was the Institute director, and was called to be a mission president in Germany. I think he was in his 40s. And I can assure you he was not rich. He had to sell his home to fund his mission.

He is, of course, the exception to the rule.

[Indy Coug]

I'll agree that mission presidents tend to be wealthier than the average member, but it's hardly a make or break criteria for being called.

I think the church likes to call mission presidents that are both retired and younger. Retired, because they don't have to sacrifice their careers and don't have young kids to deal with. Younger, because they tend to be in better health and are able to withstand the considerable rigors of the calling.

If a person is both retired and younger, they usually are relatively properous.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Hmmm... I am not so sure about that. A good friend of mine was just called to be mission president in Russia. Given where he works, their home, and the cars they drive, I can guarantee you that he is not wealthy. Not by a long shot. I guess I will have to probe a bit and see if he will give me some details.

I don't doubt there are some who are called who aren't wealthy. I would argue they are the clear exception to the rule. Simply peruse the Church News around calling time and read up on the new presidents. You will find a lot of corporate officers, doctors, etc. You will not find a lot of school teachers, construction workers, etc.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'll agree that mission presidents tend to be wealthier than the average member, but it's hardly a make or break criteria for being called.

I think the church likes to call mission presidents that are both retired and younger. Retired, because they don't have to sacrifice their careers. Younger, because they tend to be in better health, don't have young kids to deal with and are able to withstand the considerable rigors of the calling.

If a person is both retired and younger, they usually are relatively properous.

I agree.

[MikeWaters]

is being a mission president a calling, or is it more like a request?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

is being a mission president a calling, or is it more like a request?

You mean those aren't synonymous?

[MikeWaters]

in other word, is there more latitude for turning it down (finances, health, etc).