MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I swear I read that some apostles or one that I know about, doesn't accept his stipend.

Fairly likely.  There are General Authorities who did well in business and other pursuits, for whom such income likely would be superfluous.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I read somewhere that among the generous benefits provided out of tithing funds and enjoyed by the Brethren are timeshares in exotic resorts in Costa Rica, the Riviera, Luxembourg, and Spanish Fork, their choice of a chaufered Tesla X model or BMW i8 with free parking at BYU home games,  a Luxe Sea Falcon motor boat and a slip at the Great Salt Lake Yacht Club, and free refills of Ironport at Porter's Place in Lehi.

But if it's on the Interwebz, don'tcha know, Bernie Baby, it hazta be true!  

 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

The law of common consent also requires financial transparency.  A principle the church followed until the mid 1950's. 

Th law of common consent only requires faith, and that faith has commensurate spiritual knowledge.

A call for common consent is determined by the presidency of the body. The "law of presidency" first shows up in the D&C in April 1830 (Section 20); the "law of common consent" the following July (D&C 26).

In D&C 26, Joseph presided over the Church and the conference where the saints would be called to sustain what was to be made known for him to do. According to D&C 28, God appoints the prophets (verse 2, which teaches that common consent is a function of prayer and faith), commands the saints to follow and sustain him (verses 3-6) for the simple reason he has the keys (verse 7). Verse 13 sums up the relationship described in those verses as common consent, which principle also upholds the covenants of the church, which in this instance refers to agreements, arrangements, rules, policies, etc. necessary for ecclesiastic governance and include the administration of tithes (D&C 120).

Edited January 10, 2017 by CV75

[Duncan]

Something I don't understand about all these leaks is who would have this information and why would people keep it? Only Pres. Eyring would have his paystubbs wouldn't he? who would steal them (or photocopy them) and then keep them for 16 years and then become disaffected from the church and upload it only now? is there some Eyring Ex mormon hoarder out there somewhere?

[Rain]

2 hours ago, sdc999 said:

So they get paid....  That really is no big deal.  What I find kind of funny is that since this was published, EVERY LDS person that has spoken on the subject seems to have had this knowledge, according to themselves, since they were two.  They grew up playing with GA dolls pretending to get their stipend on the first and 15th.  Who needed Barbi and Ken?  They had Ballard and Hales and Monson.       

Gather round kids, we are going to tell a story of how polygamy was started.  No kiddos, it wasn't because men died on the trek and women couldn't own land so men (only 57 survived the trip while all women made it unscathed) were kind enough to marry them to allow them to continue on ----  and nothing more.   Sure kids, there are unpaid clergy within our ranks but many get paid and we call it a stipend.  Anybody that tells you any different is totally anti-mormon and quitting the church because they got their feelings hurt.  

Okay, so I'm poking fun.  But come on..... There are plenty of members that promoted a less than accurate account of the facts.  And some still to this day.  Just not on this board.

 

Yes, there are people who don't know all about this.  I've known about it for a long time, but I've had to correct people on it a number of times.  The last time was when I went to a discussion and one of the missionaries were teaching. I was actually surprised she didn't know. 

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I read somewhere that among the generous benefits provided out of tithing funds and enjoyed by the Brethren are timeshares in exotic resorts in Costa Rica, the Riviera, Luxembourg, and Spanish Fork, their choice of a chaufered Tesla X model or BMW i8 with free parking at BYU home games,  a Luxe Sea Falcon motor boat and a slip at the Great Salt Lake Yacht Club, and free refills of Ironport at Porter's Place in Lehi.

They also get a permanent temple recommend.  No need to renew.  Don't know if they still get the GA edition of the scriptures.

Edited January 10, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

40 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Something I don't understand about all these leaks is who would have this information and why would people keep it? Only Pres. Eyring would have his paystubbs wouldn't he? 

Dumpster diving or custodian took it from his office trash..  They need to shred before throwing away in the trash.

It is an older pay stub which indicates that he was cleaning out some of his older records.

Edited January 10, 2017 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

as a customer of WalMart should I be entitled to look at their books and all their expenses and how much they employee bob the cashier?

it ceases to be my money when I consecrate it to the Lord. I give Him my tithe. He pours out the windows of heaven in return. The money is His to do as He sees fit.

I have no obligation to the Lord about how His money is dispersed. I am not seeking such an obligation. Nor is He obligated to consult me on how His money is spent. I trust Him.

Quote

which does not mean I'm the boss, shareholder, employer or any other such person that entitles me to know much someone's salary is.

I think Avatar's attitude on this is pretty common in the church but in my mind it represents a huge problem. It treats church membership as customers, not members of the organization. We are shareholders of the church. It is as much my church as it is Pres. Monson's. Should WalMart shareholders know what top executives earn? Of course. No one would claim otherwise.

Are church leaders benevolent kings ruling over us, unaccountable to the people they are called to serve? I am questioning imperfect men and an imperfect organization, not a perfect God. There's a pretty massive distinction there.

I think we need to get away from the notion that leaders have zero accountability to membership.

[Duncan]

Just now, cdowis said:

Dumpster diving or custodian took it from his office trash..  They need to shred before throwing away in the trash.

but holding onto it for all this time?! and uploading it only now? people have been talking about stipends for a long time now, somebody was way out of the loop or something else is going on? interesting!

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

14 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

as a customer of WalMart should I be entitled to look at their books and all their expenses and how much they employee bob the cashier?

it ceases to be my money when I consecrate it to the Lord. I give Him my tithe. He pours out the windows of heaven in return. The money is His to do as He sees fit.

I have no obligation to the Lord about how His money is dispersed. I am not seeking such an obligation. Nor is He obligated to consult me on how His money is spent. I trust Him.

Quote

I think Avatar's attitude on this is pretty common in the church but in my mind it represents a huge problem. It treats church membership as customers, not members of the organization. We are shareholders of the church. It is as much my church as it is Pres. Monson's. Should WalMart shareholders know what top executives earn? Of course. No one would claim otherwise.

Are church leaders benevolent kings ruling over us, unaccountable to the people they are called to serve? I am questioning imperfect men and an imperfect organization, not a perfect God. There's a pretty massive distinction there.

I think we need to get away from the notion that leaders have zero accountability to membership.

While I don't agree with Avatar's customer analogy, I don't agree with your shareholder analogy any better.
We are not customers in God's Kingdom nor are we shareholders.  The Kingdom is his.  Not ours.  Not our leaders.  His.
God makes the rules.  We follow them.
And Avatar describe the rule perfectly - "it ceases to be my money when I consecrate it to the Lord. I give Him my tithe. He pours out the windows of heaven in return. The money is His to do as He sees fit."

After tithing is turned in we have zero concern with how it is used.  That is between God and his representatives.  And heaven help them if they act against his will.

[cdowis]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but holding onto it for all this time?! and uploading it only now? people have been talking about stipends for a long time now, somebody was way out of the loop or something else is going on? interesting!

See my revised post.

Please abide by the Dowis rule == allow at least ten minutes after I have posted before responding.  My posts tend o be a work in progress for that time.

Edited January 10, 2017 by cdowis

[SeekerB]

As a former employee of the Church in Salt Lake, I'm sure several of my fellow employees in the IT department made a similar amount of money.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

While I don't agree with Avatar's customer analogy, I don't agree with your shareholder analogy any better.
We are not customers in God's Kingdom nor are we shareholders.  The Kingdom is his.  Not ours.  Not our leaders.  His.
God makes the rules.  We follow them.
And Avatar describe the rule perfectly - "it ceases to be my money when I consecrate it to the Lord. I give Him my tithe. He pours out the windows of heaven in return. The money is His to do as He sees fit."

After tithing is turned in we have zero concern with how it is used.  That is between God and his representatives.  And heaven help them if they act against his will.

While I agree that the Kingdom is His, not our or our leaders, we treat it as if it is the leaders.

When you say that God makes the rules do you believe He literally establishes every rule and policy of the church? Because your explanation only works if God is personally directing every aspect of the church. This idea doesn't work for me. Not only is He not a micromanager, but those he appoints to direct the church are imperfect. So in essence there will be rules and policies that do not come from God, which are also imperfect. And you think members have no voice in how that kingdom is run. It appears you believe that leaders bear no responsibility or accountability to the members. We disagree.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, SeekerB said:

As a former employee of the Church in Salt Lake, I'm sure several of my fellow employees in the IT department made a similar amount of money.

Think of all the professional types in the COB. Like you say there are probably many who are making the same salary as top leadership. My problem isn't with the $$ leadership is making. I actually have more problem with the heavy payroll of church administration from Joe Blow who works in IT, or facility management etc. I think the overall cost of administration is bloated. So much of the $$ the church takes in simply sustains itself by paying employees salaries instead of actually "building the kingdom of God".

[cdowis]

6 minutes ago, SeekerB said:

As a former employee of the Church in Salt Lake, I'm sure several of my fellow employees in the IT department made a similar amount of money.

But you have to have your  temple recommend renewed every six six months for security purposes. 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think Avatar's attitude on this is pretty common in the church but in my mind it represents a huge problem. It treats church membership as customers, not members of the organization. We are shareholders of the church. It is as much my church as it is Pres. Monson's. Should WalMart shareholders know what top executives earn? Of course. No one would claim otherwise.

Are church leaders benevolent kings ruling over us, unaccountable to the people they are called to serve? I am questioning imperfect men and an imperfect organization, not a perfect God. There's a pretty massive distinction there.

I think we need to get away from the notion that leaders have zero accountability to membership.

I think Avatar’s comparison was simply about the transaction – the money is no longer the customer’s once he gives it away.

But since you brought it up, I don’t think it is typical at all for a member to think of himself as purchasing goods and services from the Church for himself through his contributions. Not do I think it typical for a member to think of himself as purchasing access to information kept by the Church, which is how the demand for transparency might more accurately be construed. As far as a shareholder comparison goes, I do not think it typical for a member to think of himself as purchasing control of the Church.

I do think a covenant relationship is more typical where a member thinks of himself as obeying the Lord by paying tithe.

I think the Lord knew the imperfection of the people within the Church and order He established when He set up the principles of presidency, common consent, and covenants such as tithing. That is why everywhere the word accountable is sued in scripture, it is directly to Him, sometimes to His servants, and sometimes using a clerk or scribe as part of documenting that accountability. Even in D&C 51:4-5, where a leader that “transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church,” the overriding principle is his accountability to God, which is what the laws and covenants of the church are for.

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think Avatar's attitude on this is pretty common in the church but in my mind it represents a huge problem. It treats church membership as customers, not members of the organization. We are shareholders of the church. It is as much my church as it is Pres. Monson's. Should WalMart shareholders know what top executives earn? Of course. No one would claim otherwise.

Are church leaders benevolent kings ruling over us, unaccountable to the people they are called to serve? I am questioning imperfect men and an imperfect organization, not a perfect God. There's a pretty massive distinction there.

I think we need to get away from the notion that leaders have zero accountability to membership.

Just wanted to say that as an employee at Walmart...it is getting hard to service customers happily.  They gave me a 10 cent raise last year...and then cut my hours  Now I have to work fast...real fast..and sadly customers get the bum of the deal...I don't care as much as I used to.  Sometimes I think that as "customers" of the church, they giveth...and then they taketh away. 

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While I agree that the Kingdom is His, not our or our leaders, we treat it as if it is the leaders.

When you say that God makes the rules do you believe He literally establishes every rule and policy of the church? Because your explanation only works if God is personally directing every aspect of the church. This idea doesn't work for me. Not only is He not a micromanager, but those he appoints to direct the church are imperfect. So in essence there will be rules and policies that do not come from God, which are also imperfect. And you think members have no voice in how that kingdom is run. It appears you believe that leaders bear no responsibility or accountability to the members. We disagree.

Oh my goodness. He took all that into account when He set up presidencies, common consent, and covenants.

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Think of all the professional types in the COB. Like you say there are probably many who are making the same salary as top leadership. My problem isn't with the $$ leadership is making. I actually have more problem with the heavy payroll of church administration from Joe Blow who works in IT, or facility management etc. I think the overall cost of administration is bloated. So much of the $$ the church takes in simply sustains itself by paying employees salaries instead of actually "building the kingdom of God".

What does this have to do with presidencies, common consent, and covenants, and accountability as a principle described in the scriptures?

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think Avatar's attitude on this is pretty common in the church but in my mind it represents a huge problem. It treats church membership as customers, not members of the organization. We are shareholders of the church. It is as much my church as it is Pres. Monson's. Should WalMart shareholders know what top executives earn? Of course. No one would claim otherwise.

Are church leaders benevolent kings ruling over us, unaccountable to the people they are called to serve? I am questioning imperfect men and an imperfect organization, not a perfect God. There's a pretty massive distinction there.

I think we need to get away from the notion that leaders have zero accountability to membership.

This is a sincere question and not meant to be snarky and i honestly don't know the answer.

Your post makes me question, is there anything in the scriptures that supports the idea that members of the Kingdom are shareholders with the prophets and that the prophets are accountable to the members.

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are church leaders benevolent kings ruling over us, unaccountable to the people they are called to serve? I am questioning imperfect men and an imperfect organization, not a perfect God. There's a pretty massive distinction there.

I think we need to get away from the notion that leaders have zero accountability to membership.

Church members and users of this board in particular are often quick to profess our belief in the prophets/apostles as fallible.  But this is one more example where we don't actually put that belief into practice when we insist that there is no need for transparency.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a sincere question and not meant to be snarky and i honestly don't know the answer.

Your post makes me question, is there anything in the scriptures that supports the idea that members of the Kingdom are shareholders with the prophets and that the prophets are accountable to the members.

Law of common consent.

[Johnnie Cake]

Its become quite apparent that the church is losing control of its private information and that more and more church employee non-believers are gaining access to information previously only available to trusted believers.   It is only a matter of time before even more sensitive information is leaked to the Mormon wiki.  It's really out of the control of the church at this point...but there is a solution.  The church can get ahead of the inevitable by becoming more transparent in the financial information that they make public to tithe payers or they can continue down the road that they are presently on and allow the continuous drip, drip, drip of previously secret and confidential information or they can come clean and issue in a more open and transparent era...but clearly the Genie is out of the bottle

 

[Danzo]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I really don't think the Lord likes how the church spends His money. Nothing in the Bible about malls, land development etc. Maybe shelters, hospitals, nursing homes, would be better suited.

Nothing in the Bible about cars, airplanes or hospitals or nursing homes.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Law of common consent.

Are there multiple definitions of this law?  I've found this one by BRM.  Are there more?

“Administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside."

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Its become quite apparent that the church is losing control of its private information and that more and more church employee non-believers are gaining access to information previously only available to trusted believers.   It is only a matter of time before even more sensitive information is leaked to the Mormon wiki.  It's really out of the control of the church at this point...but there is a solution.  The church can get ahead of the inevitable by becoming more transparent in the financial information that they make public to tithe payers or they can continue down the road that they are presently on and allow the continuous drip, drip, drip of previously secret and confidential information or they can come clean and issue in a more open and transparent era...but clearly the Genie is out of the bottle

 

It's interesting that in one of those first leaked videos there was a presentation made to the apostles regarding wikileaks.  But they seemed more concerned with the sexual orientation of the man behind it.