Who’s Getting Rich?

I’ve often said that the church has a twofold mission: growth and income. It’s really a big corporation disguised as a religion, and the disguise is so good that it has become a rather oppressive and reactionary religion. But I digress.

One of the most common responses I get from believers is, “If it’s a big business, who’s getting rich from the church? Certainly not our leaders, who live off modest stipends. And it’s not the members at large (obviously).”

But I think that’s the wrong way to look at it. The church, as a corporation, is essentially a large wad of cash and assets controlled by a small and tightly interconnected oligarchy of friends and relatives. The church functions by spreading wealth and power among this small group and its allies.

Think, for example, of congressmen and senators and how they operate. Very few of them are brazen enough to openly profit from their term in government (Lyndon Johnson being an obvious exception), but they spread the wealth around through “earmarks” for special projects, “favors” for friends and supporters, and other wealth-spreading maneuvers.

In the church, billions of dollars a year are spent on maintaining buildings, paying salaries, publishing materials, and massive construction projects (can you say “mall”?).

Let’s look, for example, at the underused yet enormous Conference Center. The reason it was constructed was simple: the old Tabernacle was too small to accommodate everyone who wanted to attend general conference. But was this really an issue? Broadcast capabilities had long ago made it easy for church members around the world to view conference live, thus making it unnecessary to have a meetinghouse at all for conference (notice that the new stake conference broadcasts originate in a small room, not a large chapel).

So, what was the purpose of the Conference Center? I’ve heard some cynics say it was a monument to Gordon Hinckley’s ego, but I don’t think so. The church spent $240 million on this project, and local firms Jacobsen, Layton, and Okland jointly bid on the project. Looking at the completed projects for Jacobsen and Okland, we see 39 temples, 7 Temple Square/COB projects, 7 BYU projects, and 4 BYU-Idaho projects. And of course, Okland (with Big-D Construction) got the $1.6 billion bid for the church’s City Creek Center project.

The church has connected firms, such as the legal firm of Kirton McConkie (yes, that McConkie), which handles its legal affairs. It uses local suppliers for all the materials it uses, from lightbulbs on Temple Square to the uniforms for the staff at the Lion House.

Now, I’m not suggesting that there is any overt corruption going on here (although David Knowlton has an article in Dialogue about endemic corruption in the church in Latin America). Bribery isn’t necessary; connection is. Otherwise, it makes no sense that a Utah construction firm would be chosen to do work in far-flung places like Tuxtla-Gutierrez, Mexico, and Washington, DC. Does anyone think that there are no local firms in either place that could have underbid Okland and still have done the job?

I’ve said before that the church consists of two kinds of people: the users and the used. Most members are the used. They believe in the church and its mission and give their all in money and time and labor to build the kingdom of God on the earth. The users, whether they believe or not, are the recipients of that dedication. And frankly, it’s the users who motivate the growth of the church.

The Hinckley-era construction explosion shows graphically that the church does not build based on members’ needs; otherwise, these temples dotting the land would actually be used by excited members. These temples were built to meet the needs of the connected.

And that’s how it works.

Advertisements

10 Responses to Who’s Getting Rich?

  1. SillyNut says:

    :Jaw dropping:

    God, I was sudh a stupid and naive Mormon.

  2. Chris says:

    What a terribly cynical perspective on the Church! 😉

    I poked around a bit looking for info on the Okland family. There’s not a lot out there, but I did find a few things. Jack Okland was chairman until he died last year. He was a UoU alum (and former college football player there– it looks like he even got drafted by the Giants in 1944) but was a supporter of BYU. He paid 25 Norwegian students’ way to BYU. His 7-year neighbor said he was almost always with his wife, so he does not appear to have been a closet polygamist a la Big Love. J. Randy Okland is President and CEO.

    The Oklands also do Extreme Home Makeover.

    I wasn’t able to find out if they know any GAs, but they are HQ’d in SLC, so I wouldn’t be especially surprised. It sounds like they’re a pretty capable company, though.

  3. runtu says:

    It’s really hard to be too cynical about such a cynical institution.

  4. zackc says:

    Runtu…come back to posting on MDB! These type posts are what is missing!

    (and you’ve almost been caught for most posts…are you going to lie down and let someone take your posting crown?) 😉

  5. Mina says:

    No don’t go back! I’m trying to break myself of that nasty habit!!!

  6. runtu says:

    I sometimes pop in and lurk a little. Then I read something from Coggins, and I think I made the right decision. Sorry, Zack. I’m staying away for now.

  7. zackc says:

    Ha. Yeah. Cogs is the ultimate turnoff. Like Negative Viagra or somethin. :/

  8. Jay says:

    It does bother me that there are so many family connections among GA’s. Its almost as if someone in the family is always guaranteed a spot as a GA or at least Church employment as long as they have some connection to a prominent church family (e.g. Young, Smith, Kimball, Hinckley). I know some people will say that the family is just blessed with spiritual people (which may be true), but it has to make one at least wonder. I’m not saying that all GAs have a family connection but it happens enough to raise my eyebrows.

  9. Chad says:

    Hmm … As a Mormon, going to school at BYU-Idaho I can say that our construction projects are definately to meet the needs of growing Chruch membership. A new, beutiful temple (half the size of near-by Idaho Falls), a 15,000 seat auditorium under construction, doubling the size of the Manwaring Center plus the many other construction projects during the “Hinckley-Era” icluding the re-building of the Spori Building, the construction of the Hinckley, Ricks, the Benson addition, the Snow addition, the Clarke addition, the construction of many new playing feilds and endless other expansion.

    To simply conclude that the Church constructs buildings for the benefit of the connected is simply wrong. BYU-I is the second largest higher education institution in Idaho just behind BSU at almot 20,000 enrolled students. Please consider that when Elder Bednar left enrollment was at about 10,000.

    Now, if your conclusion is correct, I think that we would have much larger and expensive buildings being built. The wonder of the Hinckley-Era was that so many blessings were able to be brought to Saints all around the world at marginal cost.

    Utah is VERY connected because most of them descend from early saints. (Mitt Romney and Elder Eyring are related). But this means NOTHING. It makes business sence. The end.

  10. runtu says:

    I have no doubt that some of the projects are needed, such as the ones you mention. But a mega-conference center and dozens of largely empty temples? That makes no business sence [sic].

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: