Jump to content
rockpond

MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

MormonLeaks (formerly MormonWikiLeaks) published a few more documents today:  https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/5mysp0/leaked_q15_and_1q70_pay_information/

Here's a summary that someone posted at the top of that reddit page:

Quote

Item #1

From the first paystub, Henry Eyring is on a 2 week schedule. The pay stub is 7/22/00-8/4/00. He was an ordinary member of the Q12 at the time (not a counselor in FP). He earned $3,096.15. Multiplied by 26 his 2000 income was $80,500. (Of course, the last stub showed his YTD income as $83,132.75, and this one was dated 11/25-00-12/08/00. A little more math leads to an annual income of $90,060.

Edit: According to CPI Inflation calculator, $90,060 in 2000 has 2016 purchasing power of $126.227.

His net pay for the first stub was $1,288.35. Annually, this works out to $33,497. Someone else will have to chime in on the distinctions between Child Allowance, Living Allowance, and Parsonage, which are the three items that make up his gross pay on this stub.

Item #2

A letter from the presiding bishopric to Elder Bruce Porter of the 1Q70, dated January 2, 2014, re:"living allowance increase for 2014". It was raised for the year 2014 from $116,400 to $120,000. More damning, in my opinion, is that the secretary to the presiding bishopric clearly refers to paychecks and pay periods. He also notes that there are medical benefits in addition to the compensation.

Edit: According to CPI Inflation calculator, $120,000 in 2014 has 2016 purchasing power of $122,240.

Item #3

For anyone who left the church because it felt bureaucratic and there were too many damn meetings, this set of papers confirms that. Things that stood out to me:

  • "There was considerable discussion of how to encourage missionaries to be obedient, the desirability of sending a problem missionary home rather than having him influence many other missionaries, and having stake presidents take a sense of responsibility for sending out missionaries who have problems."

  • "Elder Jensen reviewed a proposed addition to the [temple] recommend questions to help priesthood leaders identify and help members who are struggling with pornography."

  • "A general recommendation to provide MTC presidents and visitors' center directors with the same benefits as mission presidents was not approved."

  • "It was noted that the issue of name tags for stake missionaries needs to be addressed if stake missions are discontinued." Micromanagement much?

  • Dallin Oaks flew first class in a 757 for $811 in January 2001.

Item #4

So much boring minutiae. Minutes from Temple Facilities and Sites Committee, dated January 9, 2003. Only one quote caught my eye: "It has been noticed that the disrespect for the temple and grounds is increasing at the Salt Lake Temple. Children are knocking on doors, playing on steps, etc. It is a great privelage [sic] to be able to go up and touch the temple. This privelege [sic, with a different misspelling] might be taken away if there isn't a better control of the facilities. Bro. Olsen was given the assignment to post couples at the bottom of the stairs to keep people reverent around the temple."

Again, as with previous leaks, probably not much here to surprise anyone.

Edited by rockpond

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

MormonLeaks (formerly MormonWikiLeaks) published a few more documents today:  https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/5mysp0/leaked_q15_and_1q70_pay_information/

Here's a summary that someone posted at the top of that reddit page:

Again, as with previous leaks, probably not much here to surprise anyone.

But maybe enough to titillate the unwholesome voyeurism of some.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But maybe enough to titillate the unwholesome voyeurism of some.

I haven't bothered to actually open the docs, not worth my time right now.  But I did think it could be of interest to some.

I don't, however, consider transparency to be "unwholesome".

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

1- "There was considerable discussion of how to encourage missionaries to be obedient, the desirability of sending a problem missionary home rather than having him influence many other missionaries, and having stake presidents take a sense of responsibility for sending out missionaries who have problems."

2- "It has been noticed that the disrespect for the temple and grounds is increasing at the Salt Lake Temple. Children are knocking on doors, playing on steps, etc. It is a great privelage [sic] to be able to go up and touch the temple. This privelege [sic, with a different misspelling] might be taken away if there isn't a better control of the facilities. Bro. Olsen was given the assignment to post couples at the bottom of the stairs to keep people reverent around the temple."

I don't see much here. I'm a bit surprised apostle compensation isn't higher. This biggest problem I have is that there is no financial transparency. We shouldn't have to see this through leaks.

1- I would really like more information on decisions that are affecting missionaries. If there is a change in approach to how problem missionaries are treated- "desirability" of sending them home so they can' influence others I think it should be well known. I've seen many more missionaries come home early over the past 5 years and it would be great to know what kind of policy determines whether or not they'll be sent home early. Being sent home can be an emotionally traumatic experience that can be difficult for a missionary to bounce back from.

2- I just find this interesting. Is the ability to touch a temple really some kind of a holy privilege? This line of thinking sounds like idol worship. Yes- I do believe the temple can be an idol. Also, I wonder who they blame for the increasing disrespect; parents or ward leaders not teaching the kids? Groundskeepers or missionaries? I suppose they could put up a gated perimeter so that children don't touch the temple disrespectfully.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I haven't bothered to actually open the docs, not worth my time right now.  But I did think it could be of interest to some.

I don't, however, consider transparency to be "unwholesome".

Great. Care to tell us your weekly or bi-weekly income including benefits?

And, to make it meaningful to us, tell us your real-life (not screen name) identity?

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Great. Care to tell us your weekly or bi-weekly income including benefits?

And, to make it meaningful to us, tell us your real-life (not screen name) identity?

 

Maybe this would be relevant if you were asked to contribute 10% of your income to help pay rockpond's salary.

Also, I don't think the figure given in the leaks included all of Pres. Eyring's "benefits" or perks from what I can tell (but I haven't read everything).

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post

Church members volunteer their little hearts out...funny that they can't pay for janitors anymore..but 1st class flights and pay increases are a definite must.

Solve the missionary problems by not making it such a requirement to go in the first place.  You want to serve..go   Those who don't won't be such a horrible influence  on others.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Great. Care to tell us your weekly or bi-weekly income including benefits?

And, to make it meaningful to us, tell us your real-life (not screen name) identity?

 

Those who provide my income do know that information.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe this would be relevant if you were asked to contribute 10% of your income to help pay rockpond's salary.

Also, I don't think the figure given in the leaks included all of Pres. Eyring's "benefits" or perks from what I can tell (but I haven't read everything).

Here, I fixed it for you:

Maybe this would be relevant if you were asked told to contribute 10% of your income to help pay rockpond's salary and taught that your salvation depends on it.  (Not to mention your being able to attend your childrens' weddings.)

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Those who provide my income do know that information.

So you're not going to tell us then.

So much for "transparency."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Duplicate post

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're not going to tell us then.

So much for "transparency."

 

Scott, how about you?  What is your salary...?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're not going to tell us then.

So much for "transparency."

 

And you're going to ignore the stark differences.

As I said, those who provide my income have complete transparency.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Correct me If am wrong but didn't Grant Palmer say that Apostles get a million dollars? I am no mathematician but 90K isn't a million big onesB:) if this is even legit, they would make more in the private sector than they do working in the Church.

Interesting to see a name I know on there. He was being considered as a Mission President. He came here to our stake as an Area Seventy in 2003 or 4 and I vividly recall him having all the Bishops call all the new male converts and get them into an interview to be advanced in the priesthood. This all happened during the Sat. leadership session, well the Stake President got upset at him and there was some back and forth between them and it was awkward but anyways so the bishops called these men and one from our ward quit the Church over this interview-never saw him again. So, I don't know what the outcome of all these interviews were beyond him but I do know our SP was not happy it backfired in that one brother's case and he wanted to know from other bishops if that happened to them as well. I just checked he was an Area 70 from 2001-2007, what he's done since i have no idea. But that weekend's plan to advance more men in the priesthood didn't really work out so I am not too surprised he wasn't called as a Mission President

Edited by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And you're going to ignore the stark differences.

As I said, those who provide my income have complete transparency.

and as none of us pay them, why should we know it?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Correct me If am wrong but didn't Grant Palmer say that Apostles get a million dollars? I am no mathematician but 90K isn't a million big onesB:) if this is even legit, they would make more in the private sector than they do working in the Church

Grant Palmer's assertion is that they get $1m when they become an apostle... as a one-time payout so that they can resolve any/all debts that they have.  Or something like that -- I'm not expert on Palmer or his claim.  But he didn't ever suggest, to my knowledge, that they get an annual salary of $1m.

If the doc is accurate, $90k was Pres. Eyring's annual stipend in 2000.  I would imagine (hope) that apostles have access to a larger stipend now.  Although, we don't know what other benefits might not be shown on that paycheck that could help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Scott, how about you?  What is your salary...?? 

I'm not the one here nosing around in other people's business.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

and as none of us pay them, why should we know it?

I'm assuming that the entity providing that stipend is either the same entity or owned by the same entity to which our tithing gets sent.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not the one here nosing around in other people's business.

You just asked for mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't think he made the claim it was for debt payment [doublechecked, he did state that] but that all would get it across the board.  Iirc, he implied or stated that if they left the Church, they would have to pay this back [not sure whether he said this or someone else tacked it on to his explanation that the million was one of the reasons apostles stayed] so it was manipulation to keep them from leaving once in since they would soon find out that all the other apostles knew the Church was a fraud, etc. etc.  The whole claim context was rather suspect.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Considering their responsibilities and what these heavy hitters have given up in the private market, that seems on the low side. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don't think he made the claim it was for debt payment, but that all would get it across the board.  Iirc, he implied or stated that if they left the Church, they would have to pay this back, so it was manipulation to keep them from leaving once in since they would soon find out that all the other apostles knew the Church was a fraud, etc. etc.  The whole claim context was rather suspect.

Thanks for the memory jog.  That sounds right to me (meaning it sounds like an accurate explanation of his claim).  He did allege that all received it and I believe he also claimed that they'd have to sign something saying they would be required to pay it back if they left the church... But I also think he claimed part of the payments purpose was to get them entirely free of any debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

and as none of us pay them, why should we know it?

Especially the consumers of "mormonleaks" who have little-to-no association with the Church of Jesus Christ and wish it ill.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Especially the consumers of "mormonleaks" who have little-to-know association with the Church of Jesus Christ and wish it ill.

 

And you know all the consumers of mormonleaks and their tithe status?  Talk about transparency and journalistic diligence... well done!

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thanks for the memory jog.  That sounds right to me (meaning it sounds like an accurate explanation of his claim).  He did allege that all received it and I believe he also claimed that they'd have to sign something saying they would be required to pay it back if they left the church... But I also think he claimed part of the payments purpose was to get them entirely free of any debt.

I doublechecked and you are right on the last part...since both you and I remember the other stuff, he probably said the other, but I just looked for the one reference and he may have said it elsewhere in that talk or another presentation (not providing link as it is a site that provides explicit temple content).

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Five Solas
      The point of this thread isn’t to discuss the particulars of the LDS temple and the practices therein.  And I’m not generally in favor of people being recorded without their knowledge.  But whether content is secret (e.g., government documents disclosed via “WikiLeaks”) or sacred (temple content, in the eyes of believing LDS)—the internet seems an irresistible magnet that sooner or later makes pretty much everything accessible on the broadest imaginable scale.
       
      I recently watched a video recorded inside an LDS temple on YouTube (I’ve watched a few things related to LDS, mostly debates between LDS and evangelical Christians & its all-knowing algorithm made a recommendation).  What struck me most were the theological implications of the content I was hearing.  Having never been “endowed” it quickly became evident to me that there’s a bit more to LDS doctrine than what gets discussed in church or on message boards.  There appears to be another layer to it I really don’t know much about.  But perhaps if I did understand it better--it would help me to better understand extended family members who carry a “temple recommend card.”
       
      So I’d like to ask some questions about it and have dialogue with those who adhere to such things.  Obviously I can’t do it here.  But the bigger question (and no doubt better discussion) is this: Thanks to the internet, lots more people are going to get familiar with temple content, including investigators and membership candidates.  They’ll have questions about what they’ve seen & heard.  There will need to be answers.  Simply condemning the posters (or the viewers) of such content will be inadequate.
       
      What should the response be?
       
      --Erik
       
×