rongo Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: The church spends a lot more than that in real estate investments. Why not invest in the church? Return on investment? Seriously, I think there is a big difference in the Church having cattle ranches or real estate and paying its local clergy. I don't think the two are, or should be, considered to be equivalent. But the real question for you, Gray, is what would the pastor make, and what would the ward manager neè bishop make? Has all the vitality been sucked out of the FP and Q12 because they are paid? To a certain extent, I think yes. Especially $120,000 per annum when they are already wealthy and don't need it at all. It's like the President of the United States's salary. Has there been a president in modern times that needed a dime of the salary? But they are all happy to take it. I think it would be better for them to have a "modest living stipend" that is less than $120,000. But, it's not a testimony or deal breaker for me. Regarding their specific circumstances, I can't think of any who would have been been so wealthy when they were called that they could survive without pay for decades. Thomas Monson was a general manager at Deseret News, but he was called as an apostle in 1963. President Packer worked for CES. President Nelson was a surgeon. I'm sure he made good money, but that ended in 1984. Harking back to 1963 and 1984, maybe. But to the tune of $120,000 per year, every year, when they're in their 80s? There's no way that $120,000 is required as a "living stipend," especially when housing and travel are included outside of the $120,000. This money is just going to go to kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids as inheritance. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, RevTestament said: The argument could be made that since the US is a very litigious society, to make the church's assets a matter of public record would make the church a target for litigation. There may be truth to such a position. I do not wish to make the church a target to those who wish to sue them for every little thing. Just this morning Pres. Monson was subpoenaed to give a deposition as to whether he knew about alleged sex abuse or some such thing which allegedly occurred way back in the 60s. Perhaps it had to do with "treatment" for SSA, I'm not sure, but such litigiousness has the potential to prevent our GAs from being able to carry out their church responsibilities and to drain the hard earned tithing dollars of its members. However, if the church were a public corporation and not a "corporate sole" such transparency would be required by law. The churches assets could ONLY be tapped for payment to pay for damages awarded in a law suit in the event they are found negligent or responsible for damages in a law suit. Having assets does not make you a target of litigation...negligence does. Edited January 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
rongo Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 39 minutes ago, rockpond said: D&C 28:13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith. Obviously there is some level of detail that we can't drill down to as a common body of saints. But I see no valid reason that we can't return to the process we followed pre-1959. I know the D&C scriptures on common consent. But they nowhere require that finances be done by common consent. And even under the old transparency, money was transacted and invested without common consent. Even with the transparency of financial statements, the Church leaders are authorized to handle the finances without respect to sustaining votes on transactions. Or, by common consent, do you simply mean "pre-1959 transparency?"
HappyJackWagon Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: The church spends a lot more than that in real estate investments. Why not invest in the church? Has all the vitality been sucked out of the FP and Q12 because they are paid? Regarding their specific circumstances, I can't think of any who would have been been so wealthy when they were called that they could survive without pay for decades. Thomas Monson was a general manager at Deseret News, but he was called as an apostle in 1963. President Packer worked for CES. President Nelson was a surgeon. I'm sure he made good money, but that ended in 1984. Yeah, but Gray, for most of these guys they are joining the Q15 around retirement age (Monson is obviously an outlier). So most of them had completed their lucrative pay years and were moving towards a fixed retirement income. Many were wealthy from business or law practices. I'm sure Nelson did just fine too I really don't think they should have to justify receiving an income based on how much wealth they brought into the quorum. They should all be paid or all not paid but I don't like the suggestions by some that they in some way need to prove they need their stipend. If it's offered, they deserve it. I agree that throwing an extra $1-$2 billion to local leadership could be a healthy investment and add vitality to the church. I know some incredible full-time pastors who can run rings around lds bishops. Part of it is due to training, but mostly it's a matter of having time to do it. LDS bishops are expected to do a full time job on part-time availability. It's definitely a challenge. I wish my bishop could be half as involved in the community as the Baptist, Catholic, and Methodist pastors in my area.
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, rongo said: I know the D&C scriptures on common consent. But they nowhere require that finances be done by common consent. And even under the old transparency, money was transacted and invested without common consent. Even with the transparency of financial statements, the Church leaders are authorized to handle the finances without respect to sustaining votes on transactions. Or, by common consent, do you simply mean "pre-1959 transparency?" "All things" must be done by common consent. Section 104 talks about finances being included in that. No, we don't raise our hand for individual transactions but we can't really be participating in common consent if information is withheld from us. For this reason, new callings, policies, revelation/scripture are to be presented to the body of the church. 1
rongo Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: "All things" must be done by common consent. Section 104 talks about finances being included in that. No, we don't raise our hand for individual transactions but we can't really be participating in common consent if information is withheld from us. For this reason, new callings, policies, revelation/scripture are to be presented to the body of the church. My only point is that "all things" clearly doesn't, and never did, mean literally "all things" (it couldn't then, and doesn't now). "All things" in that context is like Ross Perot's idea to have the U.S. people vote on bills, instead of Congress. It would never work, even if it were to be tried. 1
Rain Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: That would be over $1 billion, assuming each bishop and branch president were paid or paid the equivalent of $35,000 per year. This does not include stake presidents. Would we be including the counselors as well? What about health care and other benefits? I think it is much better to have our local leaders completely ehrenamtlich (voluntary and unpaid). And I'm a 2nd time bishop. Although there are times when it is extremely time-consuming, and it would be nice (and helpful) to be able to visit people instead of work. I don't sneer at non-LDS clergy being paid, because if you are magnifying that calling, you don't have time for anything else. LDS clergy are asked to do the impossible, and largely succeed. The trouble is that as soon as you make it a paid position, you automatically suck the vitality and power out of it that comes from it being unpaid. The Church and the work would never recover. I don't criticize the Brethren for paying themselves, but I wish that they didn't have a "living stipend" because I can't think of one who needed/needs it. A pre-requisite for being a general authority is to be wealthy. And, I think a "living stipend" of $120,000 is not needed in any of their cases by any metric, regardless of what they could be getting in the private sector. 23 minutes ago, rongo said: Return on investment? Seriously, I think there is a big difference in the Church having cattle ranches or real estate and paying its local clergy. I don't think the two are, or should be, considered to be equivalent. But the real question for you, Gray, is what would the pastor make, and what would the ward manager neè bishop make? To a certain extent, I think yes. Especially $120,000 per annum when they are already wealthy and don't need it at all. It's like the President of the United States's salary. Has there been a president in modern times that needed a dime of the salary? But they are all happy to take it. I think it would be better for them to have a "modest living stipend" that is less than $120,000. But, it's not a testimony or deal breaker for me. Harking back to 1963 and 1984, maybe. But to the tune of $120,000 per year, every year, when they're in their 80s? There's no way that $120,000 is required as a "living stipend," especially when housing and travel are included outside of the $120,000. This money is just going to go to kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids as inheritance. Don't forget to include RS presidents. Bluebell quoted and linked to an article that showed housing was included inside the $120,000. The travel for assignments shouldn't be included as compensation in any way. It is a business type expense, just like software, desks, backhoes etc are. edit: ugh. messing up on "living" and "housing". Probably not the same thing. Edited January 10, 2017 by Rain 1
Gray Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 15 minutes ago, rongo said: Return on investment? Seriously, I think there is a big difference in the Church having cattle ranches or real estate and paying its local clergy. I don't think the two are, or should be, considered to be equivalent. But the real question for you, Gray, is what would the pastor make, and what would the ward manager neè Okay, they can invest in real estate and cattle and realize a monetary gain, or they can invest in the church and realize a spiritual gain, with people who have some good pastoral training and a real understanding of scriptures and theology. Or even if that wasn't realized, it would at the very least benefit the children of church leaders to have their fathers home nights and weekends. 15 minutes ago, rongo said: To a certain extent, I think yes. Especially $120,000 per annum when they are already wealthy and don't need it at all. It's like the President of the United States's salary. Has there been a president in modern times that needed a dime of the salary? But they are all happy to take it. I think it would be better for them to have a "modest living stipend" that is less than $120,000. But, it's not a testimony or deal breaker for me. Harking back to 1963 and 1984, maybe. But to the tune of $120,000 per year, every year, when they're in their 80s? There's no way that $120,000 is required as a "living stipend," especially when housing and travel are included outside of the $120,000. This money is just going to go to kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids as inheritance. Hmm, I'm not fazed by it, but I long ago abandoned the idea that unpaid clergy is some kind of noble, higher way of operating. As a dad with bills I'm all for people getting paid for the work they do. Getting paid for the work you put in is not a corrupting influence. 2
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, rongo said: My only point is that "all things" clearly doesn't, and never did, mean literally "all things" (it couldn't then, and doesn't now). "All things" in that context is like Ross Perot's idea to have the U.S. people vote on bills, instead of Congress. It would never work, even if it were to be tried. Well, I agree that we aren't going to raise our hand for "all things". But it should be the goal to have the information available so that we can be properly participating in common consent as required by our scripture. Just as I cannot sustain a position without at least knowing who has been called, I can't sustain important actions of the church without knowing what they are. The practice of financial transparency should not have been discontinued and ought to be reinstated. 1
RevTestament Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: The churches assets could ONLY be tapped for payment to pay for damages awarded in a law suit in the event they are found negligent or responsible for damages in a law suit. Having assets does not make you a target of litigation...negligence does. Spoken like a true lawyer No assets = no suits for damages because lawyers won't usually work for free... publishing large amounts of assets = how can I sue that church, and get some money out of them = let me run some ads to see if anyone wants to sue them for SSA treatment, etc tripping on a small ledge in a church building sidewalk can = large damages there need not even be any real negligence. As it is the Church is not immune against lawsuits, and several are always pending. Anyone who gets hurt while on a church property might choose to sue. Or perhaps it is a church response to a health crisis, etc, etc, etc The Church really is not a business, but the tort law treats them that way. You don't really need a tort anymore to sue - all you need is an "injured" party, and tort law finds a way.
rongo Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, Gray said: Okay, they can invest in real estate and cattle and realize a monetary gain, or they can invest in the church and realize a spiritual gain, with people who have some good pastoral training and a real understanding of scriptures and theology. Or even if that wasn't realized, it would at the very least benefit the children of church leaders to have their fathers home nights and weekends. I do have a real understanding of scriptures and theology, and while my pastoral training has been on-the-job and over time, I think it compares favorably to any seminary-trained pastor. I'll drink to children having their fathers home nights and on weekends! Hmm, I'm not fazed by it, but I long ago abandoned the idea that unpaid clergy is some kind of noble, higher way of operating. As a dad with bills I'm all for people getting paid for the work they do. Getting paid for the work you put in is not a corrupting influence. When I was first called as a bishop, we had one week to fully staff all callings in a new ward by the next Sunday. I was a middle school teacher with four little kids, and my wife was hospitalized with a life-threatening condition for months (twice) within six months of my being called. It was then that I stopped being disdainful of paid, full-time clergy. It would have been nice to have been able to do my church work full-time and not have to worry about providing for my family! 2
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 48 minutes ago, rockpond said: We can't "require" anything of them. Though it's possible that the D&C does require it. But that doesn't change my belief that they should be transparent with finances as the church used to be. I think "expect of them' is a better way to say it. But like you said, you believe they already believe they are doing what the D&C requires, right?
rongo Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, RevTestament said: tripping on a small ledge in a church building sidewalk can = large damages there need not even be any real negligence. As it is the Church is not immune against lawsuits, and several are always pending. Anyone who gets hurt while on a church property might choose to sue. Or perhaps it is a church response to a health crisis, etc, etc, etc The Church really is not a business, but the tort law treats them that way. You don't really need a tort anymore to sue - all you need is an "injured" party, and tort law finds a way. We were approached about allowing neighborhood watch meetings to be held in our church building (some ward members would be present at meetings and make sure everything was secure and locked up). Church legal was worried about potential liability of someone tripping and falling in the building, and I lost it. I can't stand that we have allowed ourselves to be taken hostage by this liability/lawsuit culture. It's a neighborhood watch meeting, and they need a place to hold it in!
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think "expect of them' is a better way to say it. But like you said, you believe they already believe they are doing what the D&C requires, right? I don't know how much thought they've given it and whether or not they are fulfilling the mandates given in the D&C.
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 10, 2017 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't know how much thought they've given it and whether or not they are fulfilling the mandates given in the D&C. You think you've given more thought on how to obediently fulfill the mandates of the scriptures in regards to the Kingdom of God than the prophet and apostles? 6
CV75 Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: I know the D&C scriptures on common consent. But they nowhere require that finances be done by common consent. And even under the old transparency, money was transacted and invested without common consent. Even with the transparency of financial statements, the Church leaders are authorized to handle the finances without respect to sustaining votes on transactions. Or, by common consent, do you simply mean "pre-1959 transparency?" I think the proponents must mean a wistful nostalgia for the Father's Knows Best days. Edited January 10, 2017 by CV75
CV75 Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Well, I agree that we aren't going to raise our hand for "all things". But it should be the goal to have the information available so that we can be properly participating in common consent as required by our scripture. Just as I cannot sustain a position without at least knowing who has been called, I can't sustain important actions of the church without knowing what they are. The practice of financial transparency should not have been discontinued and ought to be reinstated. Where are the scriptural statutes for making the information available?
cacheman Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: Okay, they can invest in real estate and cattle and realize a monetary gain, or they can invest in the church and realize a spiritual gain, with people who have some good pastoral training and a real understanding of scriptures and theology. Or even if that wasn't realized, it would at the very least benefit the children of church leaders to have their fathers home nights and weekends. Hmm, I'm not fazed by it, but I long ago abandoned the idea that unpaid clergy is some kind of noble, higher way of operating. As a dad with bills I'm all for people getting paid for the work they do. Getting paid for the work you put in is not a corrupting influence. 1 hour ago, rongo said: I do have a real understanding of scriptures and theology, and while my pastoral training has been on-the-job and over time, I think it compares favorably to any seminary-trained pastor. I'll drink to children having their fathers home nights and on weekends! When I was first called as a bishop, we had one week to fully staff all callings in a new ward by the next Sunday. I was a middle school teacher with four little kids, and my wife was hospitalized with a life-threatening condition for months (twice) within six months of my being called. It was then that I stopped being disdainful of paid, full-time clergy. It would have been nice to have been able to do my church work full-time and not have to worry about providing for my family! Here's something for you to ponder... "Could a man be a better husband if he spent every evening at home with his wife? Could he be a better husband if he had no children, thereby having all of his spare time to dedicate to her? The answer is a resounding no! No one—husband, wife, children, or church—has claim on the full time of someone else. Children, given their parents’ full-time attention, would be overshadowed and become dependent. The Church, with full-time bishops, would have a paid ministry and become an end in itself rather than a divine organization designed to help perfect the individual children of God. " -F. Burton Howard, 1st Quorum of the Seventy https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/09/the-gift-of-knowing?lang=eng 3
Johnnie Cake Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: Spoken like a true lawyer No assets = no suits for damages because lawyers won't usually work for free... publishing large amounts of assets = how can I sue that church, and get some money out of them = let me run some ads to see if anyone wants to sue them for SSA treatment, etc tripping on a small ledge in a church building sidewalk can = large damages there need not even be any real negligence. As it is the Church is not immune against lawsuits, and several are always pending. Anyone who gets hurt while on a church property might choose to sue. Or perhaps it is a church response to a health crisis, etc, etc, etc The Church really is not a business, but the tort law treats them that way. You don't really need a tort anymore to sue - all you need is an "injured" party, and tort law finds a way. Many large corporations have billions in assets...this does not make them targets of law suites. They first must actually do bodily harm, inflict injury, cause property damage through their negligence to become a target. People who sue innocent people or corporations end up wasting their time and money. Anyone can sue anyone...but without merit they are dismissed. Plus there are limits placed on the awards determined by the damages inflicted. Larger assets does not translate into larger awards...unless the damages warrant them. Edited January 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 49 minutes ago, bluebell said: You think you've given more thought on how to obediently fulfill the mandates of the scriptures in regards to the Kingdom of God than the prophet and apostles? Right... because that's what I said. No, I don't. I think they have many important matters to be considering, I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Or maybe they have thought about it and reached a conclusion that I think is inconsistent with scriptural mandate. Do you think it is not possible for them to be mistaken?
JAHS Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 This recently out from Mormontips.com:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_r_Ik4hzoc
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 27 minutes ago, CV75 said: Where are the scriptural statutes for making the information available? I've cited the scriptural support for sharing the church finances. I know of no statutes that declare precisely how to make the information available. Prior to 1960 it was done in general conference. It could still be done there or perhaps now there are more efficient means.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 I wonder what the posters here that support non transparency will say when the church decides either by their own decision or by force of law to become more transparent...will you support it then? why?
Kenngo1969 Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Many large corporations have billions in assets...this does not make them targets of law suites. They first must actually do bodily harm, inflict injury, cause property damage through their negligence to become a target. People who sue innocent people or corporations end up wasting their time and money. Anyone can sue anyone...but without merit they are dismissed. Plus there are limits placed on the awards determined by the damages inflicted. Larger assets does not translate into larger awards...unless the damages warrant them. I realize my take isn't going to be popular because it will be perceived as sticking up for "Big, Bad, Mean, Evil Corporations," (including, according to some, LD$, Inc.) but here's a news flash for you: Even law "suites" which have no merit cost money, time, and other resources to defend against until they are dismissed. 1
Jane_Doe Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I wonder what the posters here that support non transparency will say when the church decides either by their own decision or by force of law to become more transparent...will you support it then? why? I wonder how much said people actually look into the full budget of what the government does with their money (which is a lot more than 10%).
Recommended Posts