Church finances

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

Mormonism and church finances

Jump to Subtopic:

• Mormonism and church finances in the twenty-first century
• No paid ministry
• Tithing
• Mormonism and church finances in the nineteenth century
• Kirtland Safety Society

Mormonism and church finances/Twenty-first century Church Finances | Paid and Unpaid Church Leaders

Church finances

Summary: Some critics claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is misleading when it says it has no paid ministry because some full-time leaders receive financial support. Nearly all Church leaders—including bishops, stake presidents, Relief Society presidents, and other local leaders—serve without pay while continuing to support themselves through regular employment. A small number of General Authorities, mission presidents, temple presidents, and Church employees receive a modest living allowance or compensation so they can devote themselves full-time to their responsibilities. This practice is consistent with biblical and modern scripture, which teach that those who dedicate their full time to the work of the Church may receive support for their temporal needs, while warning against serving for personal gain or wealth.

---

Question: What do the scriptures teach about paid ministry?

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

In general, the most explicit statement about it comes from 1 Corinthians 9꞉7-14:

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? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

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? 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.

If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 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. 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? 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:

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? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Book of Mormon

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.

Doctrine and Covenants

When instituting the law of the Church, the Lord directed that the general Church leaders responsible for handling the temporal affairs of the Church should be compensated for their service:

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

The Lord also directed that the compensation be sufficient to care for the leaders' families:

Let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop. And let him also reserve unto himself for his own wants, and for the wants of his family, as he shall be employed in doing this business.

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.”

Question: Are local Church leaders paid?

The Church does not have a professional clergy. Consider:

• 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 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 D&C 42꞉71-73).
• General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.

Ward and Stake Leaders

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 and Temple Presidents

Mission and temple presidents are called by General Authorities to serve for a period of 3 years. As a result of this call, some presidents leave full-time employment before they retire. Therefore, they may receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many such 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.

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.

Question: Are general Church leaders paid?

As directed in the Doctrine and Covenants, at least some General Authorities receive a modest living stipend.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference: "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."

If provision did not exist for allowing those who are not "independently wealthy" to provide full-time Church service, the Church could be seen as "favoring the rich" because it would not allow those of lesser means to serve. The Church has noted:

General Authorities leave their careers when they are called into full time Church service. When they do so, they are given a living allowance which enables them to focus all of their time on serving in the Church. This practice allows for far more church members on a worldwide basis to be considered for a calling to serve as a General Authority, rather than limiting considerations to only those who may be financially independent. The living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities. None of the funds for this living allowance come from the tithing of Church members, but instead from proceeds of the Church's financial investments.

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. As noted in a 2013 manual for Church teens, "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."

What financial sacrifices do general Church leaders make?

Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, many general Church 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.

How much do general Church leaders receive?

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.

In 2014 the stipend was increased from $116,400 to $120,000.

Do general Church leaders sign non-disclosure agreements about finances?

It is possible that general Church leaders sign non-disclosure agreements about their finances. This may be in connection with a general non-disclosure agreement about Church operations generally. Non-disclosure agreements are common in most businesses, in which someone in the organization who has access to sensitive information agrees not to publicly disclose that information. Including financial compensation for executive leaders is likely very common among private businesses in the United States of America, where the amount paid to the executive officer does not need to be reported to federal tax authorities.

Question: What about Church employees?

To provide administrative support to ecclesiastical leaders and members worldwide, the Church employs a small number of Church members in various job capacities, such as meetinghouse facility managers, temple facility managers, and Church department staff. These members are compensated only for their employment activities—they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or Church service.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Church Finances | Tithing

Church finances

Summary: Tithing has been a commandment for God's covenant people since ancient times and remains an important part of Latter-day Saint worship today. This article explains the scriptural basis for tithing, how the law of tithing was established in the restored Church, and how it is practiced today. It also answers common questions about how tithing is calculated, why members are asked to pay it even during financial hardship, and how tithing funds are used. Paying tithing is a personal act of faith and worship in which members determine for themselves what constitutes a full tithe. The blessings associated with tithing are both spiritual and temporal.

---

Question: What is tithing?

The Church has explained:

Tithing is the donation of one-tenth of one’s income to God’s Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 119:3–4; interest is understood to mean income). All members who have income should pay tithing.

The Lord’s covenant people have lived the law of tithing since ancient times (see Genesis 14:18–20; Leviticus 27:30–32). The Lord has said, “The tithing of my people … shall be a standing law unto them forever” (Doctrine and Covenants 119:3–4).

Tithes are holy to the Lord, and members honor Him by paying tithing. This is an expression of faith in God and His promises. Those who pay tithing receive this promise from the Lord: “Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Malachi 3:10).

Question: Should I pay tithing on gross income, net income, or something else?

The Church has explained:

The First Presidency has answered this question in this way: “The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one-tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this” (First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970).

In other words, the way you define your income, and consequently your tithing, is a matter between you and the Lord. Prayerfully seek the Lord’s guidance on issues like taxes, gifts, scholarships, and other matters to determine what qualifies as a full tithe.

Question: Can I donate to a charity and count that as tithing?

Church members are encouraged to donate to help the poor and needy when they are able to do so. However, those donations to charitable organizations are not tithing. Elder Neil L. Andersen taught: "The Lord clearly directed how tithing should be disbursed, saying, 'Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse' [Malachi 3:10], meaning bring the tithes into His restored kingdom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This echoes the teaching of President Dallin H. Oaks: "We pay tithing, as the Savior taught, by bringing the tithes 'into the storehouse' (Mal. 3:10; 3 Ne. 24:10). We do this by paying our tithing to our bishop or branch president. We do not pay tithing by contributing to our favorite charities. The contributions we should make to charities come from our own funds, not from the tithes we are commanded to pay to the storehouse of the Lord."

Question: Should I pay tithing before paying for food or rent?

If someone is in the situation where they have to choose between tithing and food, it is of benefit to sit down and talk with the bishop as they have access to better training and employment opportunities as well as may be helpful in establishing a better budget so that such a conflict won't arise in the future.

With regard to self sufficiency, we are taught as well that we need to be part of our faith community and that requires of us time to allow others to serve us. It is a kindness to give others such opportunities, even when we don't necessarily need such help. There are blessings that come from being a charitable receiver as well as a charitable giver.

A family in San Salvador had joined the Church and was experiencing a great change in their lives:

The Vigils’ bishop, César Orellana, also saw changes in their lives. Soon after their baptism, Amado approached Bishop Orellana and said, “We want to pay tithing, but we don’t know how.”

Bishop Orellana explained that tithing was 10 percent of their increase. Amado was somewhat concerned. At the time, Evelyn had a job, but he did not. “We always come up short,” Amado explained to his bishop, “but we want to pay tithing.”

Bishop Orellana responded, “Brother, the Lord has made many promises.” Together they read scriptures about the blessings that come from faithfully paying tithing, including the Lord’s words through the prophet Malachi: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, … and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Malachi 3:10).

After reading these scriptures together, Bishop Orellana looked at the new convert and said, “If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”

The next Sunday, Amado approached Bishop Orellana again. This time he didn’t ask any questions. He simply handed his bishop an envelope and said, “Bishop, here is our tithing.”

Reflecting on this experience, Bishop Orellana says, “Ever since then, they have been faithful tithe payers.” The family received some commodities from the bishops’ storehouse during their financial difficulties. Beyond that, the Lord blessed them to be able to care for themselves. Evelyn received a promotion, and Amado found a good job. Evelyn later lost her job, but they continued to pay tithing and to receive spiritual and temporal blessings for their faithfulness. Once Bishop Orellana asked Amado how the family was doing financially. Amado responded, “We’re doing all right. Sometimes we don’t have much to eat, but we have enough. And more than anything, we trust in the Lord.”

Question: Why should the poor and destitute pay tithing?

Paying tithing is a matter of faith. From a believer's perspective, a more accurate description than "pay what little they have to a multi-billion megamall owning Church" would be to "donate one-tenth of what little they have to the Lord."

There is a Biblical precedent for the idea that even those that are destitute will be blessed by the Lord if they pay their tithing. Elder Lynn G. Robbins related the following at the April 2005 General Conference:

The Lord says to Elijah, “Arise, get thee to Zarephath … : behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee” (1 Kgs. 17:9). It is interesting that Elijah is not told to go to Zarephath until the widow and her son are at the point of death. It is at this extreme moment—facing starvation—that her faith will be tested.

As he comes into the city he sees her gathering sticks.

“And he called to her, and said, Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.

“And as she was going to fetch it, he called to her, and said, Bring me, I pray thee, a morsel of bread in thine hand.

“And she said, As the Lord thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die” (1 Kgs. 17:10–12).

A handful of meal would be very little indeed, perhaps just enough for one serving, which makes Elijah’s response intriguing. Listen: “And Elijah said unto her, Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first” (1 Kgs. 17:13; emphasis added).

Now doesn’t that sound selfish, asking not just for the first piece, but possibly the only piece? Didn't our parents teach us to let other people go first and especially for a gentleman to let a lady go first, let alone a starving widow? Her choice—does she eat, or does she sacrifice her last meal and hasten death? Perhaps she will sacrifice her own food, but could she sacrifice the food meant for her starving son?

Elijah understood the doctrine that blessings come after the trial of our faith (see Ether 12:6; D&C 132:5). He wasn't being selfish. As the Lord’s servant, Elijah was there to give, not to take. Continuing from the narrative:

“But make me thereof a little cake first [the firstlings], and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son.

“For thus saith the Lord God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth.

“And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days.

“And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Elijah” (1 Kgs. 17:13–16; emphasis added).

Elder Robbins also noted:

Among those who do not sacrifice there are two extremes: one is the rich, gluttonous man who won’t and the other is the poor, destitute man who believes he can’t. But how can you ask someone who is starving to eat less? Is there a level of poverty so low that sacrifice should not be expected or a family so destitute that paying tithing should cease to be required? Faith isn’t tested so much when the cupboard is full as when it is bare. In these defining moments, the crisis doesn’t create one’s character—it reveals it. The crisis is the test.

Mark 12:41–44 gives us the story of the widows mite:

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: for all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Question: Is tithing "buying our way" to heaven?

Tithing is one way Latter-day Saints live the law of consecration, which the Lord taught is essential for those who will live in heaven. Living the law of tithing helps Saints prepare for living in heaven. Tithing does not "buy" anyone access to heaven.

Question: Will tithing ever go away?

In 1907, President Joseph F. Smith announced that Church members had been sufficiently faithful in paying tithing that the Church was essentially debt free (or more accurately, the Church "owes not a dollar that it cannot pay at once. At last we are in a position that we can pay as we go"). President Smith also stated, "We may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God."

Some have wondered if this means tithing will eventually go away. From the early days of the Church until 1990, Church members were asked to contribute donations beyond what they paid in tithing. These extra donations were added to ward and temple building funds, ward activity budgets, and other activities. In 1990 the Church announced that all activities and operations of local units and facilities would be paid from tithes and offerings. As a result, wards and other local entities no longer were to ask for extra donations to cover building costs, activity costs, and so forth.

In discussing this change, Elder Boyd K. Packer explained that it was a fulfillment of the statement by Joseph F. Smith. Elder Packer said: "For years, Presidents of the Church have talked of and prayed for the day when tithes and offerings would qualify members for full participation in the Church. President Joseph F. Smith, as early as 1907, stated, [quote from above]. . . . The scriptures speak of tithes and of offerings; they do not speak of assessments or fund-raising. To be an offering, it must be given freely—offered. The way is open now for many more of us to participate in this spiritually refining experience."

President Thomas S. Monson described this change as a "giant step forward in funding all such costs through tithing—even the Lord’s way."

Thus, the donations President Smith spoke of were those that went beyond tithing and were the donations for local building and activity funds and other programs. Thus, tithing was not intended to go away, as noted in a Church manual: "The commandment to “pay one-tenth of all [a person’s] interest annually” is not a lesser law to be replaced at some future time but is “a standing law unto [the Lord’s people] forever” (D&C 119:4)."

Question: Has the definition of tithing changed over time?

Yes, the definition of tithing has changed over time. From the Church's founding until 1838, "the words tithe and tithing as used in the Church referred to any voluntary offering, regardless of the amount." Beginning in 1831, "the Saints had been instructed to consecrate all of their property to the Church. This effort was moderately successful at first, but, ultimately, unsuccessful business and banking ventures undertaken by Church leaders, as well as nationwide economic problems, failed to produce the necessary funding to carry out the various divinely mandated endeavors. In an effort to cover Church expenses, Edward Partridge, in consultation with his first counselor and the manager of the Missouri storehouse, had suggested in late 1837 that each household donate 2 percent of its net worth each year."

In 1838 "questions arose about the best way to meet the Church’s financial needs and the role donated funds should play." In response to these questions, the Lord instructed that "first, the Saints should make a one-time donation of all their surplus property; 'and after that,' the revelation said, 'those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually.'" By 1841, the requirement for an initial donation of all surplus property "shifted to donating one-tenth of Saints’ net worth at the start of the Nauvoo Temple’s construction or when they joined the Church," while the requirement of donating "10 percent of their increase or income each subsequent year" continued unchanged. This practice of tithing continued through the end of the 19th century. At some point around the turn of the century, the practice of donating 10 percent of net worth upon joining the Church was discontinued. Today, "tithing is [defined as] the donation of one-tenth of one's income to God's Church."

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

Mormonism and church finances/Nineteenth century Church Finances | Kirtland Safety Society

The Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society

Summary: The Kirtland Safety Society was a financial institution organized by Joseph Smith and other Church leaders in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1836–1837 to help meet the economic needs of a rapidly growing Latter-day Saint community. The organizers initially sought a legal bank charter but were denied by the Ohio legislature, leading them to reorganize as an "anti-banking" company under the advice of legal counsel. The venture operated during a period of widespread land speculation and financial instability and ultimately failed amid the national financial panic of 1837. While the decision to proceed without a charter was unwise and later found to violate Ohio banking law, the evidence does not support claims that Joseph Smith intentionally defrauded investors. Instead, the failure was a combination of poor legal advice, economic turmoil, and the challenges facing frontier financial institutions during a national economic crisis.

Video published by the Church History Department.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

---

Question: What was the Kirtland Safety Society "anti-bank"?

Given that banking was in its infancy, the Saints were not sophisticated in their understanding of how a bank worked

Even Brigham Young, an astute businessman, was confused. Brigham deposited a note with his mark on it. He was shocked to receive the same note in payment from someone else a few days later! It seems that Brigham thought that the bank kept his note for him, and did not allow it to circulate. He thought of a 'bank' as something more like a safe deposit box—one puts their valuables in, and the bank keeps those same valuables safe, does not lend them out, and returns the exact same items back when asked. Brigham did not understand that a bank keeps a record of money deposited, but uses the funds deposited to make loans and investments, and to pay other creditors.

In principle, the Kirtland Safety Society was to use land and specie to back its notes

The notes would then circulate and function as "money," which would allow the cash-strapped Kirtland economy to function.

The Kirtland Safety Society was reconfigured as an "anti-banking company" after it failed to receive a charter as a bank

After failing to receive a charter for a bank, the KSS was hastily reconfigured as "a joint stock association, with limited power to issues notes" called the "Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company." This so-called "quasi-bank" style of operation permitted a commercial enterprise to effectively function as a bank without a bank charter. Other such quasi-banks were already organized in Ohio before the KSS, and even after the bank failures of 1837 (when Joseph Smith and others were prosecuted for operating an illegal bank), Ohio did little to act against other quasi-banks until 1873. Significantly, though, the KSS also had no corporate charter that could be "interpreted loosely" to allow for banking activities, and some authors regard this as the single biggest reason for its failure, although others have argued that the KSS was not unique, since "[t]here were other unauthorized banks in Ohio during this period and some encouragement was received from anti-Democratic newspapers to establish such institutions."

On 2 January 1837, Joseph also obtained a loan of $3,000 from the Bank of Geauga, a clear sign that non-Mormon bankers did not regard Joseph has over-extended or carrying too much debt.

The Kirtland Safety Society was an unwise venture that was probably illegal, though legal counsel was divided on that matter at the time

The intent of Church leaders does not seem to have been to break the law, but to solve a vexing problem which thousands of others also faced. The failure of the bank was not due to mismanagement or a desire to enrich individuals, but due to the relatively fragile nature of the time’s financial infrastructure, and the economic conditions of 1837. The lack of a charter was the KSS's biggest weakness and the most ill-advised decision connected with it. Arguably, even had the bank possessed a charter, the outcome would have been little different, save that the Church leaders would have suffered fewer legal problems and harassment.

The Kirtland Safety Society is an excellent example of why Latter-day Saints do not put their trust in men, but in God. It also demonstrates that the Saints will continue to support fallible men as prophets of God.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Question: What is the timeline of the Kirtland Safety Society?

27 March 1836

Kirtland Temple dedication

August 1836

Oliver Cowdery investigates the production of bank notes, so consideration of a bank underway by this date.

2 November 1836

The Kirtland Safety Society Bank’s constitution is drafted. Sidney Rigdon made president; Joseph Smith made cashier.

1 January 1837

Oliver Cowdery arrives with printing plates for bank notes; Orson Hyde reports that the state legislature will not grant them a charter. Their inability to receive a charter leads them to form a joint-stock company, the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company (KSS).

2 January 1837

KSS opens for business.

6 January 1837

Notes from the KSS begin circulating

23 January 1837

The KSS announces it can redeem notes with land, but was unable to redeem its notes in specie (gold)

1 February 1837

KSS notes circulating at only 12.5 cents per dollar face value

10 February 1837

A second attempt is made to get a bank charter; some non-Mormons are part of this application, including Joseph Smith’s lawyer and Samuel Medary, a future governor of two states.

April 1837

Joseph Smith twice warns the Saints that the KSS will fail if the members do not accept the notes as payment for goods and services

May 1837

All banks in Ohio suspend specie payment as a banking panic spreads west from New York.

8 June 1837

Joseph Smith resigns from KSS, as he is convinced the bank is not viable

June 1837

LDS newspaper Messenger and Advocate reports that Kirtland land prices have increased 800% during the past year alone.

July 1837

Extant note for $100 with Warren Parrish's signature.

August 1837

Joseph Smith denounces the new leadership of the KSS, since Parrish, at least, was continuing to issue new scrip even though the bank was failing.

27 September 1837

Joseph and Sidney Rigdon go to visit Missouri; in their absence, the Kirtland Church is rent by strife and apostasy

October 1837

Joseph and Sidney found guilty at trial of illegal banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper currency (a civil, not criminal offense). They are fined $1,000 each, and appeal.

November 1837

Final failure of the KSS. Joseph is left with debts of $100,000; he has goods and land, but these are unable to be converted into ready cash

22 December 1837

Brigham Young flees Kirtland for Missouri, convinced that his life is in danger from apostates because of his staunch defense of Joseph Smith

12 January 1838

Joseph Smith, having returned to Kirtland, leaves with Sidney Rigdon to escape the risk of prison and mob action

Question: What terms and definitions should a person know to understand banking in the 1800s?

face value: the specie value marked on scrip. For a $20 note, the face value would be $20.

note

another term for scrip

redeem: to exchange scrip for specie at the bank

specie: hard currency, precious metal coins of accepted value (gold or silver)

scrip: paper money, issued by a bank. An example of KSS scrip can be seen here.

suspension of payment: an indication by a bank that, until further notice, it can no longer redeem its scrip with the face value of specie.

wildcat bank: a bank established as a money-making scam. "A wildcat bank was one in which the managers of the bank made a deliberate effort to evade paying off notes by making the place of redemption inaccessible to those trying to trade notes for specie". Thus, the bank kept the specie, and the note holder was left with worthless paper which no one would honor, since it could not be redeemed (the bank being located "where the wildcats are"). Such banks usually collapsed quite quickly when it became clear that their notes were not easily redeemed.

Question: What were banks like at the time that the Kirtland Safety Society was established?

Kirtland was not alone in this struggle—hundreds of frontier communities tried to set up banks in the late 1830s

This sort of situation is difficult for a modern reader to appreciate: we have easy world-wide banking, debit cards, credit cards, mortgages, and lines of credit. Kirtland was not alone in this struggle—hundreds of frontier communities tried to set up banks in the late 1830s.

As one author remarked:

The founders of the Kirtland Bank would have avoided their distress if national and state leaders had allowed financial markets to grow in an orderly manner. One medium-sized, twenty-year mortgage would have solved most of the financial problems faced by these founders.

The Saints were land rich but cash poor. Credit was scarce on the frontier, and even specie was in short supply. The Saints could not easily convert their considerable land wealth into cash to pay for purchases. (One cannot, for example, pay someone 1/10 of an acre of land for a barrel of nails!)

There were no national banks, and many Democrats were strongly anti-bank. Those on the frontier needed help desperately to keep their economies moving:

The attitude was, essentially, that "the East won't finance us and if they do, they will kill us with interest." The conclusion that frontier communities should finance themselves, whatever their hard equity, was not unique to Kirtland. Added to the economic condition of the western frontier was the Mormon impulse favoring self-sufficiency.

The failure of the Kirtland bank was not unusual, especially for rural banks—fully half of the banks formed in the 1830s had failed by 1845. This was due in large part to the economic realities of the time:

Most economic historians do not believe that banks at that time were usually operated by unprincipled men for selfish ends. More typically, it is the consensus that the instability of bank credit was inherent in the structure of the banking system and involved factors beyond the control of individual banks. The main flaw in state banking in the 1830s was that it was predominantly a rural institution and had little liquidity or shift-ability. In the large cities of the East, loans could be liquidated—that is, turned into cash quickly—by simply calling for payment, but this could not be done in the outlying areas...Thus the reckless and inexperienced management of many state banks was combined with a scarcity of productive commercial loans to create a state banking system with grave weaknesses. As a consequence, most state banks fulfilled their functions at the expense of constant bank failures, violent business fluctuations, and enormous losses to noteholders and depositors.

Question: Why were properties in the name of Joseph Smith?

In the early days of the Church, the finances of Joseph Smith and the institutional Church were enmeshed

This was not unusual, as the idea of religious groups functioning as corporations and holding property was frowned on in Jacksonian America.

In 1836, the Church was centered at Kirtland, and was undergoing substantial growth. The Saints were constructing the Kirtland temple, at considerable cost, as well as financing property and business acquisitions, the immigration of poor members to Ohio, and missionary work.

To finance this explosive growth, loans were sought. Joseph Smith and the Church had extensive loans; some loans were for Joseph, some for Kirtland, and some for the Church. In some instances, Joseph was the only borrower, in other cases he was one among many who were liable for a given debt.

Banks do not loan money to those they consider poor risks, and so to his contemporaries, Joseph clearly appeared to have the ability to meet his obligations. The amount of the loans seems to have been less than the total value of the lands, businesses, and goods which Joseph and the Church owned. However, these assets were difficult to liquefy—the loans were often short-term (from a few weeks to around 180 days) and so cash flow problems beset Joseph continually.

Question: Did Joseph Smith personally profit from the Kirtland Safety Society?

Joseph did not profit personally from the bank, and withdrew his support before the failure

Joseph probably suffered more legal repercussions than anyone from the event. There is no evidence that Joseph was "getting rich," or attempting to do so, from the bank. He paid more for his stock in the bank than 85% of the subscribers, and he put more of his own money into the bank than anyone else, save one person.

In June 1837, Kirtland land values had increased by 800% in just one year, so the idea of backing the bank with land does not seem unreasonable.

Furthermore, the bank's weakness became a drain on Joseph, and he expended considerable resources trying to save it—including obtaining three new loans—which only worsened his position in the end.

Joseph was left with debts of $100,000. He had that value in goods and land, but it was difficult to convert these to cash. (Ironically, it was this very issue which had led to the bank's formation in the first place.)

Joseph fled for fear of his life, but as late as 1843 worked to settle his Kirtland debts

Joseph fled for fear of his life, but also left creditors behind. Admirably, even as late as 1843, he continued to work to settle his Kirtland debts, even though he was far away in Nauvoo and effectively beyond the reach of his creditors. In a 23 June 1874 speech, Brigham Young indicated that "some of his [Joseph's] debts had to be settled afterwards; and I am thankful to say that they were settled up."

⍗

Learn more about the Kirtland Safety Society

FAIR links	R. McKay White, "The Kirtland Safety Society," (lecture presentation, Proceedings of the 2009 FAIR Conference, , August 2009). link
Video	Video published by the Church History Department. Load video YouTube YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy ContinueDismiss Load video YouTube YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy ContinueDismiss
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

[Letter on Mormonism, 26 July 1841,] Christian Advocate and Journal (New York) 15, no. 52 (11 August 1841). off-site “Mormonism,” Daily Morning Post (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) no. 64 (23 November 1842). off-site “Mormonism, or Knavery Exposed,” Western Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio) (28 April 1841). off-site “Extraordinary Imposition of the ‘Latter Day Saints’—Mormonism—Matter for the Consideration of every good citizen—Important Facts—All should feel that they have a direct interest in them. From the Saturday Courier,” Western Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio) (21 July 1841). off-site Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), Chapter 14. ( Index of claims ) Sally Denton, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, (Secker & Warburg, 2003), 15. (Source: Brodie) William Alexander Linn, The Story of the Mormons (New York: Macmillan, 1902), ?. E. G. Lee, The Mormons, or Knavery Exposed (Frankford, Philadelphia: Webber & Fenimore, 1841), 12-14. off-site Full title James M’Chesney, An Antidote To Mormonism, revised by G. J. Bennet (New York, NY: Burnett & Pollard, 1838), 21. off-site Full title A Visitor, “Mormonia: Mormon Town. From the Miami of the Lake,” Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, D.C.) (4 July 1837). off-site Wilhelm Wyl, Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 35–36.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top