Did this General Authority lie in his Conference talk?

[Notatbm]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Not a lie.  The word lie suggests hiding.  Context matters.  
That said, let’s be honest, splitting hairs to differentiate between a living wage and payment for services at the rate of 100k? I mean, arent most of us working and collecting basically enough for a living wage, and many just under 100? who cares what we label it. GAs get money.  It’s their money to accept or reject.  We are talking church policy here. 
 

I dont know that we really need to put much guesswork into their salary. According to the memo posted above the "Base" (meaning there may be more) was $116,400 in 2013 and was increased to $120K. That is an approx three percent increase. Do they do that every year? Beats me but if it is increased according to inflation then the paycheck may look a lot closer like ~$171K today. Parsonage is likely increased at a similar rate.

 

Another website (widow's mite) estimates salaries as well.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

She got paid a very small amount, so small it was probably called something else rather than pay

Gas money….

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It makes sense that it would be at the prophet’s discretion and that not all would want to move into a new home just because. 

Security costs would be an issue now, imo.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Agreed- they just need to be careful when they say "WE" have no paid clergy when clearly "WE" do have some paid clergy especially when the person who is actually saying it gets a paycheck from the church every two weeks.

This is similar to a commander I worked for in Iraq who never once stepped outside the wire and went on a combat mission. In fact, to my knowledge he had never personally engaged in combat in his entire career. He would routinely brag about how "WE" were kicking AQI butt on a daily basis despite taking hundreds of casualties in the process. He wasn't wrong about "WE" meaning "US" because "WE" were kicking butt. He wasn't involved in it so it would have been much more accurate to say "you guys" or some such thing. 

 

Not quite similar because General Authorities have spent a very significant amount of their service not being paid even a living allowance, so it would be closer to a General who had extensive combat experience themselves but now sent people into combat.

While I don’t see this talk not mentioning it as a lie or hidden and he certainly was personally familiar with the experience of serving without pay, so could speak directly to that experience with accuracy and intimacy, my nitpicking nerve does think it would be a good idea to mention the living allowance in perhaps a footnote.  I would say in the talk itself, but not sure how that wouldn’t create an awkward transition.  That offends my aesthetic side, lol.

Edited 20 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

Does everyone with a living allowance live in Utah? At least longterm.   Iirc, those who lived elsewhere had to move to Utah once called as a General Authority, but I am not sure for those besides Apostles.

I could see if having a calling where they lived outside the US temporarily, having an additional stipend if necessary to cover additional expenses relevant to a particular country/countries while still getting the same overall allowance.  We could have never lived in Moscow without a stipend from the US government on top of the usual salary, for example, when my husband taught there on a Fulbright grant.

Edited 22 hours ago by Calm

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Gas money….

Lol. She taught at home, but she did drive across the city once when she wanted to pick up some beer that she heard would be good against snails because she didn't want her seminary students to see her buying it. 

Edited 21 hours ago by Rain

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does everyone with a living allowance live in Utah?

If what I have heard is correct then no - I understand at least some mission presidents get it as well.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

At least longterm.   Iirc, those who lived elsewhere had to move to Utah once called as a General Authority, but I am not sure for those besides Apostles.

I could see if having a calling where they lived outside the US temporarily, having an additional stipend if necessary to cover additional expenses relevant to a particular country/countries while still getting the same overall allowance.  We could have never lived in Moscow without a stipend from the US government on top of the usual salary, for example, when my husband taught there on a Fulbright grant.

 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

Lol. She taught at home, but she did drive across the city once when she wanted to pick up some beer that she heard would be good against snails because she didn't want her seminary students to see her buying it. 

Perhaps for a different kind of gas since she’s teaching teenagers?

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, Rain said:

If what I have heard is correct then no - I understand at least some mission presidents get it as well.

 

Correct.  I had forgotten them.

My memory remembers the MP in Moscow as having both college age kids and a three year old, but now I am wondering if I am mixing up his family with the bishop’s.  We took the little girl to the zoo with our 5 year old. (Who is now 36, so reasonable my memory is uncertain).  There weren’t a lot of animals and the ones there often looked pretty sad as they had been suffering, sometimes starving, heard a few got stolen and sold, some maybe even eaten during the previous turmoil.  
 

Anyway, the MP would have had to be rich to have his family with him there.

Added:  My husband confirms he had his family.  Can’t remember who the girl belonged to though.  Half our life ago almost, he pointed out.  

More I think about it, the more I think the little one was the bishop’s.  She was born in Finland as at that time it was safer to fly mummy there to deliver than stay in Moscow’s hospitals.  Which means they were there longer than three years.  

Edited 20 hours ago by Calm

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Security costs would be an issue now, imo.

How would the security costs be an issue? JFYI the latest filing with the SEC (the one the church used to lie on...) states the Domestic (US) stock holdings of the church were valued at ~$60BN. Even a 1% dividend yield off that (Im sure they get a bit more) is over $600million annually. That should be enough to take care of the additional costs. That doesn't even take into consideration all the bonds, foreign investments, real estate and for-profit businesses the church has. The only cost the church cant afford is whatever they just don't feel like paying or that they can get the members to pay for.

Also consider the increase of the value of the portfolio from Q1 '26 to Q2 '26 was an increase of ~$7BN.... more than the entire estimated annual budget for the church. the $600Mil alone could pay the annual salary for 3K security guards at a total compensation rate of $200K per year. Imagine what $7BN could pay for in terms of security. I doubt they would need 3K additional security personnel. The church spends money in direct relation to what they feel is worth paying for and that says a lot.

 

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not quite similar because General Authorities have spent a very significant amount of their service not being paid even a living allowance, so it would be closer to a General who had extensive combat experience themselves but now sent people into combat.

It wouldnt matter if my commander had been in Vietnam or Desert storm.. he still wasnt involved in the fight we were in and was safely ensconced behind the wire, sandbags and bunkers and did not participate in any combat. He wasnt part of the we. We were a unit with divisible assets who would be attached to other organizations for missions. Our commander didnt even plan missions, he was working part time for a higher guy and part time being our commander. Our missions were strictly Company size (~120 troops) down to platoon size (~30-60 troop) which is what I was leading at the time.

He didnt come under fire, he didnt lead missions, he didnt engage in combat, we wasnt wounded. He did not participate in the combat missions "WE" were on. My own company suffered 48% casualties and the fact his existence somewhere at HQ where no one could find him made him definitely not part of the "WE." Granted his job wasnt to be out with us, but to take credit for what "we" did as if he was a participating team member is irritating.

My platoon was routinely parted out to go augment other missions and I wasnt with some of the squads who went out. Many times they came back with some crazy stories. In one engagement they killed ~35 AQI. They kicked butt and were my troops but I wasnt on the mission with them and there is no way I would have told them ... "we kicked butt tonite."

2 hours ago, Calm said:

While I don’t see this talk not mentioning it as a lie or hidden and he certainly was personally familiar with the experience of serving without pay, so could speak directly to that experience with accuracy and intimacy, my nitpicking nerve does think it would be a good idea to mention the living allowance in perhaps a footnote.  I would say in the talk itself, but not sure how that wouldn’t create an awkward transition.  That offends my aesthetic side, lol.

Best idea is for these guys to quit saying we have no paid clergy. It isnt true and it rarely adds anything of value to the talk or conversation unless they want to virtue signal which is probably a majority of the motivation IMHO.

Edited 19 hours ago by Notatbm
typos

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

If what I have heard is correct then no - I understand at least some mission presidents get it as well.

 

Mission presidents get reimbursed for living expenses, BYU tuition and missions paid for kids, funds to fly kids out to see them, funds for birthday and christmas presents, dance / violin etc lessons for the kids. Lots of stuff. I dont think they are paid a salary though. Also they are instructed to not tell their tax preparers any details about their financial agreement with the church....that one is interesting. Maybe a nothing burger

Source is 2006 mission presidents handbook pp80 if you can find one. Scribd has it if you have an account.