Are general authorities alloted vacation time?

[halconero]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

I can't comment on general authorities but I can comment on what I know from my family members who have served in these full-time callings:

Mission President - no time off except for P-days (and down-time on p-days is severely limited/interrupted)

Temple President - can take time off and away from the temple if another member of the temple presidency is able to cover.  There always has to be one member of the presidency in the temple.

 

Also a note on Mission Presidents. Those with children/youth in their home during their presidency are strongly urged to make sure that along with their P-day, they take a Family Day on Friday or Saturday or something to go hiking, go to the movie theatre, play sports, or whatever. Just make sure that their family gets their undivided attention during that time. My 2nd Mission President had a 16 year-old son there, and at one point the Area Seventy stepped in a reprimanded him for cutting their family time in half to do Mission President stuff. Thereafter the only calls he would answer during that time would be ones from one of his counselors in the Mission Presidency, he wouldn't even answer the Assistants. The missionaries had to go through them first, see if they could sort it out, and only in extreme circumstances would he pick up the phone.

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, halconero said:

Also a note on Mission Presidents. Those with children/youth in their home during their presidency are strongly urged to make sure that along with their P-day, they take a Family Day on Friday or Saturday or something to go hiking, go to the movie theatre, play sports, or whatever. Just make sure that their family gets their undivided attention during that time. My 2nd Mission President had a 16 year-old son there, and at one point the Area Seventy stepped in a reprimanded him for cutting their family time in half to do Mission President stuff. Thereafter the only calls he would answer during that time would be ones from one of his counselors in the Mission Presidency, he wouldn't even answer the Assistants. The missionaries had to go through them first, see if they could sort it out, and only in extreme circumstances would he pick up the phone.

Good point.  When my dad served as mission president, my siblings and I were all adults so I never thought about that aspect.  When we visited him, he made time for me and my kids but that time was always punctuated by phone calls (not a complaint, I thought that the experience was really good for my children to see how their grandparents were serving). 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow. That's a heavy church load to carry along with working full time. I wonder why they aren't paid. Obviously the church doesn't have a problem with having employees, both ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical. It sure sounds like a huge burden and with the growing international church it seems like a fully time employee/General auxiliary presidency member would be better able to serve if they were full time. Also, it would allow for much greater diversity in an international church for leaders to come from other areas of the world/country instead of needing to keep them all local to the Wasatch front.

The auxiliary leaders are supported by full-time, paid staff and infrastructure at Church headquarters, so I'm sure that helps to keep the burden manageable.

Plus, each general auxiliary has a general board that shares the load of traveling around the Church and meeting with local leaders.

General auxiliary presidencies only serve for a few years; turnover is frequent. So forsaking an occupation or career and relocating for only a few years of full-time service would be a lot to ask -- although I recognize that's what is done with mission presidents and their wives.

 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The auxiliary leaders are supported by full-time, paid staff and infrastructure at Church headquarters, so I'm sure that helps to keep the burden manageable.

Plus, each general auxiliary has a general board that shares the load of traveling around the Church and meeting with local leaders.

General auxiliary presidencies only serve for a few years; turnover is frequent. So forsaking an occupation or career and relocating for only a few years of full-time service would be a lot to ask -- although I recognize that's what is done with mission presidents and their wives.

 

and some of them are retired anyways or work for the Church in some other capacity, like Tad Callister is emeritus and 70 so I am guessing he's retired as a lawyer

[Boanerges]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

None of the auxiliary presidencies are full time callings. They are part-time non-paid positions, like stake president or Area Seventy. 

I cover the Sunday School presidency, so I know. 

Caveat: In times past, General Authorities have served in presidencies of general Sunday School and Young Men, but not currently. 

I'm just trying to understand here, and thanks for your insight Scott. In 2014 Tad Callister was released from the presidency of the Seventy (and as a Seventy)  and called as president of the Sunday School (still a general officer of the church, thus speaking in Conference every other year or so like the other general officers). So he went from being full time and stipend paid to part time (although apparently retired) unpaid?

FWIW, I would have no problem with the auxiliary presidents being full time and "paid." I would guess they are paid some travel expenses, probably similar to what mission president counselors are (I am friends with one of those guys, and they have a church card to cover things like gas, meals and lodging if necessary). I don't have a problem with "paying" our GAs or MPs - they are giving up their employment, homes, etc., and are working full time for the church. I don't think they should be paid like CEOs (and I don't think they are), but I'm fine with them being paid for their expenses.

Edited to add I was typing at the same time as Duncan.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Boanerges

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Not just CD sales, but proceeds from ticket sales to concerts when they are on tour. Admission is not free, as it is for Salt Lake City events. And it's not cheap. 

Also, donors contribute money to fund the choir's activities (I'm not referring to tithing here; this is donated money earmarked for the choir and Orchestra at Temple Square. It is done through LDS Philanthropies) 

Spouses or guests may come on tour, but they must pay their own way.

I went with the choir last year to the East Coast and this year to Europe, not as a singer but as a news reporter. And I've covered the choir for years. 

You say it didn't used to be that way. I don't know that it was ever not that way. 

Sorry, meant to put an "etc." after CDs. 

Before I posted last night I did a search because I thought things had changed in how finances are worked and I did find somewhere that confirmed that,  but except for one unofficial place I am not finding that this morning. The unofficial place, which repeated whatever I found last night,  said early on they did "fundraisers" as well as donations. I'm not sure how that differs from what they do now. Perhaps not different enough to matter when I think about the kinds of fundraisers I would do if I were them. 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

and some of them are retired anyways or work for the Church in some other capacity, like Tad Callister is emeritus and 70 so I am guessing he's retired as a lawyer

 

2 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I'm just trying to understand here, and thanks for your insight Scott. In 2014 Tad Callister was released from the presidency of the Seventy (and as a Seventy)  and called as president of the Sunday School (still a general officer of the church, thus speaking in Conference every other year or so like the other general officers). So he went from being full time and stipend paid to part time (although apparently retired) unpaid?

FWIW, I would have no problem with the auxiliary presidents being full time and "paid." I would guess they are paid some travel expenses, probably similar to what mission president counselors are (I am friends with one of those guys, and they have a church card to cover things like gas, meals and lodging if necessary). I don't have a problem with "paying" our GAs or MPs - they are giving up their employment, homes, etc., and are working full time for the church. I don't think they should be paid like CEOs (and I don't think they are), but I'm fine with them being paid for their expenses.

Edited to add I was typing at the same time as Duncan.

Duncan is correct about Brother Callister.

One interesting point: When he was named as Sunday School general president, we went from addressing him as "Elder Tad R. Callister" to "Brother Tad R. Callister."

I wondered, at the time, what to do, because ordinarily, he would still have retained the "Elder" title by virtue of his emeritus status. But the convention is to use the "Brother" title for male members of general auxiliary presidencies.

So, in my first interview with him, I asked him, and he said to go with "Brother."

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

Sorry, meant to put an "etc." after CDs. 

Before I posted last night I did a search because I thought things had changed in how finances are worked and I did find somewhere that confirmed that,  but except for one unofficial place I am not finding that this morning. The unofficial place, which repeated whatever I found last night,  said early on they did "fundraisers" as well as donations. I'm not sure how that differs from what they do now. Perhaps not different enough to master when I think about the kinds of fundraisers I would do if I were them. 

I'm sure LDS Philanthropies fills whatever role fundraisers may have served in the past.

[mnn727]

I remember President Monson talking about being at Disneyland with his grandchildren in a GC Talk