MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And now we're back to the conversation about fungibility of funds.

Whether from tithing or investment funds or substitutable. It's merely a shift in ledgers.

Apparantly, some of us know more about fungibility of funds than the church does.  Or, they are lying i guess.  Are there any other ways to solve the contradiction between the church repeatedly stating that something does not come out of tithing funds and 'fungibility of funds'?

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Income from "investments" is indirectly from tithing since tithing money was used to make the investments - unless they are taking the money from fast offerings, church building funds or other funds which I would find much more disturbing.

The church is routinely gifted money and real estate from members.

[Buckeye]

At the risk of side-tracking, I've been puzzled by the church's repeated statements that various payments (such as the ones in the OP) derive from church investments rather than tithing.  My gut says, "so what"? Tithing is paid on an increase whether that comes from investments or labor. So why does the church think that its payments are different if they are made directly with tithing monies rather than with income from church properties that were purchased with tithing donations? All church assets derive in one way or another from tithing or other charitable donations.

[bluebell]

Just now, Buckeye said:

At the risk of side-tracking, I've been puzzled by the church's repeated statements that various payments (such as the ones in the OP) derive from church investments rather than tithing.  My gut says, "so what"? Tithing is paid on an increase whether that comes from investments or labor. So why does the church think that its payments are different if they are made directly with tithing monies rather than with income from church properties that were purchased with tithing donations? All church assets derive in one way or another from tithing or other charitable donations.

Tithing and charitable donations are two different things.

Besides that, the church routinely receives donations of money and real estate outside of tithing and charitable donations.  Many members leave the church part of their estates at death, for example.

[ERayR]

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Income from "investments" is indirectly from tithing since tithing money was used to make the investments - unless they are taking the money from fast offerings, church building funds or other funds which I would find much more disturbing.

Unless you don't understand the Church receives donations that are neither tithing or fast offerings but are donations that are undesignated.  Some of these are quite substantial.  These are what make up investment funds. 

[ERayR]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

At the risk of side-tracking, I've been puzzled by the church's repeated statements that various payments (such as the ones in the OP) derive from church investments rather than tithing.  My gut says, "so what"? Tithing is paid on an increase whether that comes from investments or labor. So why does the church think that its payments are different if they are made directly with tithing monies rather than with income from church properties that were purchased with tithing donations? All church assets derive in one way or another from tithing or other charitable donations.

Listen closely Investments are not purchased with tithing funds.

[Kenngo1969]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Income from "investments" is indirectly from tithing since tithing money was used to make the investments - unless they are taking the money from fast offerings, church building funds or other funds which I would find much more disturbing.

I don't know how one would know that "tithing money was used to make ... investments."  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

Unless you don't understand the Church receives donations that are neither tithing or fast offerings but are donations that are undesignated.  Some of these are quite substantial.  These are what make up investment funds. 

I haven't heard this explanation before. So some donations to the church are NOT charitable donations? Do individuals or estates not receive tax benefits for donating funds or property to the church?

Quote

Apparantly, some of us know more about fungibility of funds than the church does.  Or, they are lying i guess.  Are there any other ways to solve the contradiction between the church repeatedly stating that something does not come out of tithing funds and 'fungibility of funds'?

What they say may be technically true so they're not lying about it even though funds are fungible. I expect they are making efforts to separate funds but that doesn't mean that all funds aren't derived from donations to the church and the church has control over all funds.

Edited January 10, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Kenngo1969]

11 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

... All church assets derive in one way or another from tithing or other charitable donations.

I don't know that that's the case.  See Bluebell's and ERayR's replies, below yours and above mine here.  What if, as Bluebell points out, I gift the Church of Jesus Christ an income-producing asset?  (Would that it were! That would mean that I have far more resources than I do currently!)

P.S.: Tell your gut to quit worrying so much!

Edited January 10, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't heard this explanation before. So some donations to the church are NOT charitable donations? Do individuals or estates not receive tax benefits for donating funds or property to the church?

What they say may be technically true so they're not lying about it even though funds are fungible. I expect they are making efforts to separate funds but that doesn't mean that all funds are derived from donations to the church and the church has control over all funds.

I think that such donations are considered charitable donations legally, but they are not donated as charity (i.e.. they aren't donated with the same purpose of humanitarian aid or fast offerings are donated).  You know, like if someone donates money for a building to be built.  That's considered a charitable donation legally but the donation was not meant to provide charity.

 

[ERayR]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't heard this explanation before. So some donations to the church are NOT charitable donations? Do individuals or estates not receive tax benefits for donating funds or property to the church?

Don't attribute something to me I did not say.  Tithing is a charitable donation but a charitable donation is not necessarily tithing.  Put another way tithing is a subset of the set of charitable donations but charitable donations are a much larger set of donations.

What they say may be technically true so they're not lying about it even though funds are fungible. I expect they are making efforts to separate funds but that doesn't mean that all funds are derived from donations to the church and the church has control over all funds.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Please elucidate.

 

[jbarm]

As someone who has been offered several financial-related management positions with the Church over the years I do want to make it clear that the Church does not pay their professional staff very well.

My observation is that many of the senior professionals/managers in the Church organization made their money elsewhere and agreed to work for the Church for well below market rates for their skill set as some sort of missionary opportunity/offering. Some, in fact, provide their professional service for no compensation at all (I have direct knowledge of a number of senior Church business leaders who are currently in this status).  Have to give them kudos for these efforts and sacrifices.

The problem is that this expectation is then imposed upon those who have not made substantial sums in the private sector and want to make a reasonable living working for the Church.

As a result I turned down multiple offers for employment with the Church because the pay offered was 20+% below market rate for my skills (and then current pay).  When I declined the offers, I explained I couldn't afford to take care of my family on the wages that would be paid.

Happy I didn't take the offers as they came. Can't stand the thought of wearing a white shirt, tie and suit to work every day.  :-)

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right based on how it is set up now but that's not how it was originally organized. Changes happen over time and as those changes have happened common consent has been whittled away to almost nothing where it only applies to sustaining callings.

The principle is the same as ever (D&C 26), as are the accountability and presidency principles set up by the Lord.

Application and practice are bound to change, but still follow the principles as revealed, according to the character preserved in canon. “That was then” came about and ended, and “This is now” also came about, by common consent, a principle of faith, involving members and leaders, both who are accountable to the Lord.

As for a whittling away of the practice, yes, the United Order and anything that might be construed as its practical derivatives no longer exist, but I have been in settings in the last 12 months where decisions and its actions were proposed to be sustained by the common consent of the presided group. The principle is still alive and well.

Edited January 10, 2017 by CV75

[RevTestament]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church is routinely gifted money and real estate from members.

Quote

ErayR said: Unless you don't understand the Church receives donations that are neither tithing or fast offerings but are donations that are undesignated.  Some of these are quite substantial.  These are what make up investment funds. 

That might still be in the realm of "tithing" but good point.

Full disclosure would certainly help me to understand these things...

Nevertheless just because I choose to give more than 10% doesn't mean it is not "a tithe." 

I would concede unconditionally tho that bequests to the Church and other such gifts do not represent a part of an annual increase, and therefore scripturally are not a tithe.

Edited January 10, 2017 by RevTestament

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That might still be in the realm of "tithing" but good point.

The very limited experience that i have with this is that these things are not donated as a way to pay tithing.  It is an extra donation that did not come from obligation. 

[Okrahomer]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church is routinely gifted money and real estate from members.

I don't know if there are other ways the Church receives these types of donations, but there's an office building just west of BYU's Provo campus for "LDS Philanthropies".  This office receives non-tithing, non-fast-offering charitable contributions--even from those who do not belong to the LDS Church.  All of the institutions and/or programs to which one can donate are listed on the LDS Philanthropies website.  Among the donation options are:  BYU, BYU-I, BYU-H, LDS BC; LDS Humanitarian Services, Church History, Temples, Tabernacle Choir, Self-Reliance/PEF, Family History/Family Search, and CES.  "Ways of Giving" include:  Donate Online, Donate, Stock, Non-Cash Gifts, Family Giving, In Memoriam, Monthly Automated Donations, Company Matching, Will/Trust/etc.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Okrahomer

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, jbarm said:

As someone who has been offered several financial-related management positions with the Church over the years I do want to make it clear that the Church does not pay their professional staff very well.

My observation is that many of the senior professionals/managers in the Church organization made their money elsewhere and agreed to work for the Church for well below market rates for their skill set as some sort of missionary opportunity/offering. Some, in fact, provide their professional service for no compensation at all (I have direct knowledge of a number of senior Church business leaders who are currently in this status).  Have to give them kudos for these efforts and sacrifices.

The problem is that this expectation is then imposed upon those who have not made substantial sums in the private sector and want to make a reasonable living working for the Church.

As a result I turned down multiple offers for employment with the Church because the pay offered was 20+% below market rate for my skills (and then current pay).  When I declined the offers, I explained I couldn't afford to take care of my family on the wages that would be paid.

Happy I didn't take the offers as they came. Can't stand the thought of wearing a white shirt, tie and suit to work every day.  :-)

Many years ago i was offered a job working in the office of a new temple.  I remember that the pay was barely over minimum wage so i had to turn it down.  It would have been a significant pay decrease.

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know how one would know that "tithing money was used to make ... investments."  

True without full disclosure, that is the case. But see above.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours 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.

As I've said before, I believe God commands the building of a temple, in a location, according to a certain pattern, debt free, with the finest materials.
I believe he leaves the securing of the zoning permits, the hiring of the construction workers, the purchase of materials etc. to the mortal men.

I donate for them to build temples according to God's commandments.
I don't care how they go about arranging the building.

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Not to be nit picky but you do not provide their income.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does.  You either choose to contribute to the Church or you choose not to.  If you choose to contribute the money is no longer yours, you have given it away.  A gift for which you receive an income tax deduction.

I contribute to a church that is under mandate to do all things, including finances, by common consent.  They ought to return to that practice.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I contribute to a church that is under mandate to do all things, including finances, by common consent.  They ought to return to that practice.

I'm guessing that our leaders interpret the law of common consent differently than you do.  Either that, or they are willfully choosing to disobey it.

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't heard this explanation before. So some donations to the church are NOT charitable donations? Do individuals or estates not receive tax benefits for donating funds or property to the church?

Some might.
I refuse to claim my tithing on my taxes.
Doesn't feel like I gave it to the Lord if I get it right back, even a portion.

[ERayR]

18 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That might still be in the realm of "tithing" but good point.

Full disclosure would certainly help me to understand these things...

Nevertheless just because I choose to give more than 10% doesn't mean it is not "a tithe." 

I would concede unconditionally tho that bequests to the Church and other such gifts do not represent a part of an annual increase, and therefore scripturally are not a tithe.

They are also not tithes unless they are designated as tithes.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Income from "investments" is indirectly from tithing since tithing money was used to make the investments - unless they are taking the money from fast offerings, church building funds or other funds which I would find much more disturbing.

One does not have to keep paying the bank on a loan once it is paid off even the entire amount you have used to invest in something came from that loan.  The bank has no moral or legal claim to the money you have earned by putting the investment to work.  A loan may have been the source of the original investment, but it is what was done with it that is the source of anything past that amount.

And it wasn't always tithing money that was used to make investments.  Outright donations have been given by many since the beginning of the Church (Martin Harris' 5000 for the printing of the BoM, the Nauvoo Temple was rebuilt with such donations instead of the usual tithing fund).  Also, the Church was originally given charge of the territory by the Feds and was over land management.  (Haven't found info on what led to the arrangement or how it was dealt with)

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/40165/Donations-to-Nauvoo-temple-fund-still-accepted.html

Nauvoo House was built by issuing stock, as was instructed through revelation:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/124.56-83?lang=eng#56

Edited January 10, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I contribute to a church that is under mandate to do all things, including finances, by common consent.  They ought to return to that practice.

They never left that practice:

D&C 26

  1 Behold, I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville, and to performing your labors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do.

  2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

In other words:

“What to do shall be made known to the President of the Church. Common consent in the body is the means of his doing that which is made known to him. Much prayer and faith, both his and the members’, is the means of both (common consent and what he shall do) because he shall receive all things – both common consent and what he shall do – by faith, both his and the members’. Amen.”

Edited January 10, 2017 by CV75