Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church Employee Salary Info Leaked


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If God really does lead this church through His prophets then there is no valid criticism. There are 15 prophets, seers, and revelators, if something needs to change they will know when and how to change it. I don't see how people who call themselves "faithful" don't understand this. The truly faithful ones who might, think something is worth criticism, don't say anything, not because it's frowned upon, but because they are humble enough to realize that their opinion may be wrong compared to that of 15 prophets.  

Perhaps you are correct regarding their inspiration at times. However, the 15 have been wrong before and that opens up the possibility to their being wrong again. So, the faithful should have their eyes at least a little bit open to that possibility. Further, they aren't infallible, so a priori, there is a possibility of error, at times. Isn't that correct?

So is it problematic to trust but verify? Surely you don't believe in blind obedience to the 15?

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Perhaps you are correct regarding their inspiration at times. However, the 15 have been wrong before and that opens up the possibility to their being wrong again. So, the faithful should have their eyes at least a little bit open to that possibility. Further, they aren't infallible, so a priori, there is a possibility of error, at times. Isn't that correct?

So is it problematic to trust but verify? Surely you don't believe in blind obedience to the 15?

No I don't; that's why I pray to God to give me understanding and confirm to me the correctness of their actions. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

One can have faith (I do) and still recognize that the 15 are imperfect men.  Church leadership has made mistakes throughout our history.  To say that we should never question anything they say or do would be advocating for a cult like blind obedience  

 

It's not blind obedience if I pray to God for confirmation about the things they do. I am patient and faithful enough to know that if something turns out to be wrong I know it will not be bad enough to harm me or my hinder my path to salvation. Nothing like that has ever happened to me yet. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No I don't; that's why I pray to God to give me understanding and confirm to me the correctness of their actions. 

Yes, but by saying correctness," aren't you ascribing some sort of quasi or actual infallibility to them? How do you know prior to investigation that they have any correctness whatsoever? Shouldn't one not assume correctness but assume fallibility?

Edited by Pete Ahlstrom
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I know that's the apologetic response. 

I see that as highly unlikely to be "the apologetic response".  Most apologists I hang out with would not simplify the reactions of those who define themselves as critics in such a way.  There would be very little to concern ourselves about if that were so, imo.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Yes, but by saying correctness," aren't you ascribing some sort of quasi or actual infallibility to them? How do you know prior to investigation that they have any correctness whatsoever? Shouldn't one not assume correctness but assume fallibility?

I wouldn't call it infallibility. I simply recognize that they are on a higher level of knowledge, experience, and spirituality than I am. Every 6 months I raise my hand to confirm that I support them as prophets, seers, and revelators and God's chosen leaders on the earth. They don't live in a bubble; they are at all times very aware of what is going on in the world, that affects everyone and they have to take into account that what they do and say will fit with all types of people, races, and cultures. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, JAHS said:

It's not blind obedience if I pray to God for confirmation about the things they do. I am patient and faithful enough to know that if something turns out to be wrong I know it will not be bad enough to harm me or my hinder my path to salvation. Nothing like that has ever happened to me yet. 

No offense, but you'd have no clue if you were wrong about these things. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No offense, but you'd have no clue if you were wrong about these things. 

I haven't found anything better yet; and I have done a lot of searching and praying in my life.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, JAHS said:

Sure you can donate to other churches and charities, but If you want to be a member in good standing in the LDS church and partake in the ordinances and blessings of the temple, there is only one organization you can pay your tithing to. I'm pretty sure that principle will never change; financial disclosure or not.  Ask any Bishop or General Authority. 

You may be right about what EVERY Bishop or General Authority may say but I am skeptical that you would ever get 100% agreement on anything amongst 33,000 people.

Regardless, I believe we pay tithing to God, not the church. The TR question asks "Do you pay a full tithe?" It doesn't define what a "full tithe" is or where it is paid. So a member can reasonably answer the question that they pay their tithing even if it is paid elsewhere. I'm sure you'll disagree and that's fine. I know my view is on the fringe.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, JAHS said:

It's not blind obedience if I pray to God for confirmation about the things they do. I am patient and faithful enough to know that if something turns out to be wrong I know it will not be bad enough to harm me or my hinder my path to salvation. Nothing like that has ever happened to me yet. 

I agree.

Link to comment
On 2017-5-18 at 9:28 AM, JAHS said:

I wouldn't call it infallibility. I simply recognize that they are on a higher level of knowledge, experience, and spirituality than I am. Every 6 months I raise my hand to confirm that I support them as prophets, seers, and revelators and God's chosen leaders on the earth.

Based on what is mentioned in the mormonleaks site, some members of the LDS Church do receive
a salary (some mask this by using the term 'stipend').  If this is true, do you believe those you raise your
hand to confirm every 6 months will ever be spiritually honest and remove the lie that said church has
no paid clergy?  Using the term 'volunteer' instead of clergy doesn't work either.  And does said church
member escape paying taxes when they refer to it as a stipend?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
3 hours ago, theplains said:

Based on what is mentioned in the mormonleaks site, some members of the LDS Church do receive
a salary (some mask this by using the term 'stipend').  If this is true, do you believe those you raise your
hand to confirm every 6 months will ever be spiritually honest and remove the lie that said church has
no paid clergy?  Using the term 'volunteer' instead of clergy doesn't work either.  And does said church
member escape paying taxes when they refer to it as a stipend?

Thanks,
Jim

You are the one calling it a salary when it clearly is not.  What they receive is a remuneration for the expenses they incur for their service. They have given up their past lives and careers and have dedicated all their time for service in the church. If they are not earning money in a regular job how else are they going to live and pay for all they are involved in to lead the church?
Didn't you see the leak showing Elder Eyring's allowance payment? It listed taxes that were taken out for federal and state and other common deductions.
Edited to add that that there are many members of the church who are employed as regular salaried employees by the church, but they are not general authorities or other church leaders. Their pay is designated as a salary.

Edited by JAHS
Link to comment
15 hours ago, theplains said:

Based on what is mentioned in the mormonleaks site, some members of the LDS Church do receive
a salary (some mask this by using the term 'stipend').  If this is true, do you believe those you raise your
hand to confirm every 6 months will ever be spiritually honest and remove the lie that said church has
no paid clergy?  Using the term 'volunteer' instead of clergy doesn't work either.  And does said church
member escape paying taxes when they refer to it as a stipend?

Thanks,
Jim

The stipend is likely to compensate for their administrative work, not the ecclesiastical work ;) 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, JAHS said:

You are the one calling it a salary when it clearly is not.  What they receive is a remuneration for the expenses they incur for their service.

uh...what?  You sure about this?  I think they are given benefits beyond their pay to help cover expenses, just like other employees who travel, for instance. 

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

They have given up their past lives and careers and have dedicated all their time for service in the church. If they are not earning money in a regular job how else are they going to live and pay for all they are involved in to lead the church?

Most are retired and could live just fine on retirement benefits, I'm thinking. 

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

Didn't you see the leak showing Elder Eyring's allowance payment? It listed taxes that were taken out for federal and state and other common deductions.
Edited to add that that there are many members of the church who are employed as regular salaried employees by the church, but they are not general authorities or other church leaders. Their pay is designated as a salary.

Most employees make less than the modest living stipend the leaders get, to be clear, and some of them have young families to care for.  let's not get too excited in our defenses. 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, JAHS said:

You are the one calling it a salary when it clearly is not.  What they receive is a remuneration for the expenses they incur for their service. They have given up their past lives and careers and have dedicated all their time for service in the church. If they are not earning money in a regular job how else are they going to live and pay for all they are involved in to lead the church?
Didn't you see the leak showing Elder Eyring's allowance payment? It listed taxes that were taken out for federal and state and other common deductions.
Edited to add that that there are many members of the church who are employed as regular salaried employees by the church, but they are not general authorities or other church leaders. Their pay is designated as a salary.

As do many members of the church that give up many hours per week with no compensation. I listened to an audio book the other day called "Going Clear", by Leah Remini. She was aghast at how the star Tom Cruise is looked up to in the church. And how well he is treated by the church. But why not the members of that church that sacrifice more by paying into the church with much lower incomes. I'm comparing just how the members that get no pay devote so many hours and sacrifice quite a bit. Do the leaders of the church thank the membership much for this? Maybe my memory is really foggy on this, but do they get the credit they deserve? My goodness they are now janitors also! They pay to go on missions, I'm thinking that the church and scientology is an awful lot alike when I learn how much Scientologists pay to learn and climb the ladder. 

Link to comment
On 5/18/2017 at 7:24 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

You may be right about what EVERY Bishop or General Authority may say but I am skeptical that you would ever get 100% agreement on anything amongst 33,000 people.

I know there are people like you and Bill Reel who were bishops who now have fringe views, but would you have counseled people to pay tithing to whatever charity they want while you were a bishop? Bill Reel might have; he likes to brag that he counseled people to pay pretty much whatever they want to pay as tithing.

While there might be a maverick here or there among 33,000, I think the number of active bishops/branch presidents who would actually counsel people to pay tithing to whatever they want outside of the Church, and feel temple-worthy doing so, is nearly zero.

 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Most employees make less than the modest living stipend the leaders get, to be clear, and some of them have young families to care for.  let's not get too excited in our defenses. 

Not getting too excited. Haven't done that since my wedding night. My main points are that what church leaders get is not a salary and what they do get they have to pay taxes on. I would think their expenses in their leadership positions could be more than the average church member, with supporting their family and add to that all the traveling and other expenses they have to pay for related to the leadership activities. The pay that regular church employees get is commensurate with their education and experience and are competitive with similar jobs in other industries. 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

As do many members of the church that give up many hours per week with no compensation. I listened to an audio book the other day called "Going Clear", by Leah Remini. She was aghast at how the star Tom Cruise is looked up to in the church. And how well he is treated by the church. But why not the members of that church that sacrifice more by paying into the church with much lower incomes. I'm comparing just how the members that get no pay devote so many hours and sacrifice quite a bit. Do the leaders of the church thank the membership much for this? Maybe my memory is really foggy on this, but do they get the credit they deserve? My goodness they are now janitors also! They pay to go on missions, I'm thinking that the church and scientology is an awful lot alike when I learn how much Scientologists pay to learn and climb the ladder. 

The allowance that the church leaders get does not come from the members; it comes from dividends on investments made by the church in the past. In the beginning those investments may have started from members donations a long time ago but not anymore. The people they would have to thank for that are long since dead now.  Besides that I hear them thank the members quite often in General Conference for their faithfulness and support. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

I know there are people like you and Bill Reel who were bishops who now have fringe views, but would you have counseled people to pay tithing to whatever charity they want while you were a bishop? Bill Reel might have; he likes to brag that he counseled people to pay pretty much whatever they want to pay as tithing.

While there might be a maverick here or there among 33,000, I think the number of active bishops/branch presidents who would actually counsel people to pay tithing to whatever they want outside of the Church, and feel temple-worthy doing so, is nearly zero.

 

I can't argue with that. It probably is "nearly zero" but that isn't "all" or "100%" ;) 

I would have counseled people to follow the First Presidency message about what constitutes a tithe and then ask them if they are a full-tithe payer. I would then accept their answer without making them justify how much or where they paid. Those are extra questions.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The allowance that the church leaders get does not come from the members; it comes from dividends on investments made by the church in the past. In the beginning those investments may have started from members donations a long time ago but not anymore. The people they would have to thank for that are long since dead now.  Besides that I hear them thank the members quite often in General Conference for their faithfulness and support. 

And where did those funds come from?

Seriously, if members donate $$$$ and the church puts all of that into investments and then receives interest $$$$ as their stipend, saying that doesn't come from the members is a bit erroneous.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And where did those funds come from?

Seriously, if members donate $$$$ and the church puts all of that into investments and then receives interest $$$$ as their stipend, saying that doesn't come from the members is a bit erroneous.

I guess if we take tithing dollars now and build a high-rise in Philadelphia, then sell it in 50 years using the proceeds to pay the apostles - it isn't tithing money.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I can't argue with that. It probably is "nearly zero" but that isn't "all" or "100%" ;) 

I would have counseled people to follow the First Presidency message about what constitutes a tithe and then ask them if they are a full-tithe payer. I would then accept their answer without making them justify how much or where they paid. Those are extra questions.

Please tell me, though, that if members asked what you advise, you didn't simply repeat the quote and repeat the question. ;) That's too much like calling the abuse hotline, when you need to know things outside of the simple prepared statement. 

What if a member point-blank asked about donating to Feed My Starving Children in lieu of paying tithing via a donation slip? Would you have simple read the statement, and said, "So, are you a full tithe-payer?"

I have members ask for my counsel on tithing (I even had a retired attorney ask for my advice about tithing off of a very complicated real estate investment. I gave him my counsel, but noted that he knew much more about it that I do. He really was waiting for my answer to go and do what I said. Very humbling), but I've never run into a member who asked about paying tithing outside of the donation slip system to a non-church charity. I think the reason why is that they (and I) both know what the correct answer to that is. ;) 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And where did those funds come from?

Seriously, if members donate $$$$ and the church puts all of that into investments and then receives interest $$$$ as their stipend, saying that doesn't come from the members is a bit erroneous.

It was an effective campaign back when the Church started telling its members that tithing dollars weren't spent on it, but yes, erroneous, and sadly disingenuous.  Too bad the practice continues today.  And too bad members by and large bought it hook, line, and sinker. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...