MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I meant tithing received, this is a religious entity.

Many religious organisations pay tithing in some form or other.  I know that local habitats for humanity used to pay tithing to the central organisation.

Do they actually call it tithing?

[Duncan]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Well since the endowment would have been revealed to Joseph Smith in English I will go with the English translation and consider any foreign differences to be translation errors.
In English your interpretation of the covenant leaves something to be desired.

interesting as this is but what does this have to do with how much the brethren make?!

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do they actually call it tithing?

That's what they call it

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I don't know if this had been posted yet, Daniel Peterson's response:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/01/living-stipends-general-authorities.html

One paragraph I liked:

"Consider, too, the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  I count two heart surgeons, three lawyers (with degrees from Chicago, Stanford, and Duke), and two Harvard MBAs.  One of them holds a doctorate in organizational behavior.  One, with a Yale Ph.D., was the president of a large university (as, for that matter, were two others).  Three were highly successful businessmen before their call to life-long Church service.  Their professional credentials are such that the stipend amounts mentioned simply aren’t that remarkable.  In fact, they’re quite low.

I think the controversy is less about what impact the living allowances have on the general authorities and the sacrifices they have made for the Church and more about the impact the living allowances/tithing and other donations funding them have on those who make much less than 120,000$ US per year.  Justifying the allowances by saying 'this isn't what they are used to' comes across to some like saying "this isn't massive luxury, only moderate luxury" or "this is petty cash to these men" or "rich men now once were richer" when they don't think the Church should be providing anyone any luxury at all and not any necessities if they can afford it themselves (which if they were receiving that much income, it is expected they should if they were living frugally as the Church 'expects' the grassroots level to do, they are expected to have sufficient pensions and savings).  Why should the Church attempt to keep General Authorities in the rich lifestyles they are accustomed to?  Only 20% of US population makes over $100,000, worldwide qualifies that as almost filthy rich in this view.

This is not my own point of view, but I can see why this argument doesn't work for many, but may even make things worse.  For me, I don't think we have enough info (or should have what would be necessary to make an accurate judgment of what is actually being provided).  As this article points out, what that income does for them depends on expenses are in their lives:

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/100-000-income-no-big-deal-anymore-1.aspx

Even so, the appearance of the Church providing American style upper middle class income to its top leaders...yeah, I get why that grates for some when they perceive most members as falling into lower middle or less income brackets.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

interesting as this is but what does this have to do with how much the brethren make?!

The thread derailed a bit into tithing and consecration as a result of some board member's concerns over how the Church uses funds.
A derail perhaps, but a very apropos one.
And considering what the consecration covenant has us promising I think people are far too concerned with how the Church spends money.
I agreed to give everything to the Church if requested (or as Halconero put it, I accepted the law that would have me agree to give everything to the Church).

In such a covenant situation the living stipend of the brethren should be the least of my concern.  What is my alternative?  Break the covenant I made before God because I don't like the car President Uchtdorf is driven around in?

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

That's what they call it

Is Habitats for Humanity a religious organization?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I was pressured into expressing my question so you can drop the "good grief man" comment as well.

 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm under no obligation to continue to express myself here where my faithfulness is just going to come under attack ... I already know the prevailing sentiment that will be expressed ...

It sounds really unpleasant to be pressured into answering others' questions knowing full well that the questioners want the information just so they can attack you and question your faithfulness, having already decided that you're clearly up to no good.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is Habitats for Humanity a religious organization?

It's based on religious principles.

http://www.habitat.org/about/mission-and-vision

[Calm]

Thanks for the info.

[SteveO]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the controversy is less about what impact the living allowances have on the general authorities and the sacrifices they have made for the Church and more about the impact the living allowances/tithing and other donations funding them have on those who make much less than 120,000$ US per year.  Justifying the allowances by saying 'this isn't what they are used to' comes across to some like saying "this isn't massive luxury, only moderate luxury" or "this is petty cash to these men" or "rich men now once were richer" when they don't think the Church should be providing anyone any luxury at all and not any necessities if they can afford it themselves (which if they were receiving that much income, it is expected they should if they were living frugally as the Church 'expects' the grassroots level to do, they are expected to have sufficient pensions and savings).  Why should the Church attempt to keep General Authorities in the rich lifestyles they are accustomed to?  Only 20% of US population makes over $100,000, worldwide qualifies that as almost filthy rich in this view.

This is not my own point of view, but I can see why this argument doesn't work for many, but may even make things worse.  For me, I don't think we have enough info (or should have what would be necessary to make an accurate judgment of what is actually being provided).  As this article points out, what that income does for them depends on expenses are in their lives:

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/100-000-income-no-big-deal-anymore-1.aspx

Even so, the appearance of the Church providing American style upper middle class income to its top leaders...yeah, I get why that grates for some when they perceive most members as falling into lower middle or less income brackets.

I understand.  I would point out that nobody knows how the brethren choose to spend that money, i.e. how charitable they are with their own fast and other offerings...which is why I see the "leaks" as so unfortunate.  

Also, as my wife pointed out, the family of the apostles do not share the same calling.  Are they supposed to live frugally as well?  Maybe grandpa pitches in to pay for his grandkid's college tuition?  

I dunno, I think people are unfairly making assumptions on nothing but cold hard numbers.  As you say, there's just not enough information.

 

[sdc999]

On 1/10/2017 at 2:17 PM, rongo said:

 A pre-requisite for being a general authority is to be wealthy. 

lolololololololol.   I'm sorry sir, but you are not wealthy enough to represent the Lord in such a manner.  Off you go to your peasant abode. 

We only want the rich folks to represent us. 

With that statement, you are declaring the church to be "not true".  So, God could not call a poor person to that position?  I think God has been represented by many poor people over history.

I rarely get riled anymore as I have aged but please tell me you were joking and don't believe for a minute that the proverbial stick up your butt elitist diatribe is really what you profess.  

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

lolololololololol.   I'm sorry sir, but you are not wealthy enough to represent the Lord in such a manner.  Off you go to your peasant abode.

We only want the rich folks to represent us.

With that statement, you are declaring the church to be "not true".  So, God could not call a poor person to that position?  I think God has been represented by many poor people over history.

I rarely get riled anymore as I have aged but please tell me you were joking and don't believe for a minute that the proverbial stick up your butt elitist diatribe is really what you profess.

In all fairness, while it wasn't true at all for the first half of the Church, when was the last time a GA wasn't a wealthy man when called?

I agree with you though that the calling of GA does not require wealth at all.  The Church itself was heavily in debt for many years.  Brigham Young was both rich and a pauper many times.
But in the last 50 years, has there been a GA who didn't have a 6 figure income at the time he was being called?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In all fairness, while it wasn't true at all for the first half of the Church, when was the last time a GA wasn't a wealthy man when called...
But in the last 50 years, has there been a GA who didn't have a 6 figure income at the time he was being called?

Do you know the financial status of the 1st Quorum of Seventies?

[Calm]

Quickly looking at them, it does appear that the majority of them have master degrees, a large number of them are entrepreneurs and likely successful ones (though I have heard a few less than stellar individuals make a big deal about how they were Vice Presidents...of a two employee company, the other being the "President").  Number of lawyers, doctors, and upper upper level management.  Definitely the successful go getter type.

However, I have found one I really doubt was 6 figures and that was the Sao Paulo Institute Director who had worked in CES for 13 years.  

Another possibility....I have no clue about federal jobs, this sounds really important, but perhaps the perqs were better than the salary:  https://www.lds.org/church/leader/massimo-de-feo?lang=eng&role=05

It appears that many nonAmerican GAs are from the CES system.  Given the poor reputation for salaries in said organization, I doubt they qualify as "wealthy" even if high up in their area.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Calm

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I have trouble taking the "500-person office answering questions" comment seriously.

For those unaware, it is a metaphor, hyperbola, with a touch of irony ==>> a rhetorical device.

Edited January 12, 2017 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

I've pretty much stayed out of this thread, until I just read a comment about the stipends elsewhere. There are thousands of bishops and stake presidents out there working their butts off. Some travel great distances to their stake centers several times a month, think of the $ that takes. Besides all the time away from their family. Therefore I think they need to go back to paying bishops/stake presidents. My current stake president was a bishop right before this. His wife is suffering from breast cancer and they have a son on a mission. He will have spent over 10 years at these callings. I think these men need to be paid a stipend too. Hopefully these leaks will change things.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Hopefully these leaks will change things.

I find that extremely unlikely.  More likely to lose the stipends for the GAs.  Most likely if there was an uproar would be to move towards bishops who were retired with adult, independent children.

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Calm

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

So what did you mean by that comment?

If I gave the impression of questioning your worthiness, I apologize.  I was making an inquiry of your focus on things that matter vs things of lessor importance, perhaps even destructive.  I have my own gospel hobbies == I have devoted a great deal of time and focus on reading and understanding the Book of Mormon, and the world of apologetics.

Edited January 12, 2017 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find that extremely unlikely.  More likely to lose the stipends for the GAs.  Most likely if there was an uproar would be to move towards bishops who were retired with adult, independent children.

 

Wishful thinking I guess, and just want to mention, I've thought this way, way before my faith struggles.

[Rain]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In all fairness, while it wasn't true at all for the first half of the Church, when was the last time a GA wasn't a wealthy man when called?

I agree with you though that the calling of GA does not require wealth at all.  The Church itself was heavily in debt for many years.  Brigham Young was both rich and a pauper many times.
But in the last 50 years, has there been a GA who didn't have a 6 figure income at the time he was being called?

I know one (a seventy) who was called in the last decade. While I don't actually know his income, I know his occupation  and other things that show his income was not high. 

[sjdawg]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Alright, for those who are so interested in my questions that they have insisted on completely derailing the thread, here ya go:

I actually made reference to this question early on, by the way.  I wonder why such a huge proportion of the Canadian tithing dollars go to BYU.

I've wondered that too.   Especially since my recollection is that about the time I was graduating from High School in Canada we were advised by Church leaders that to attend universities in Canada and leave the limited BYU spots to others.   There simply wasn't enough room to accommodate us at BYU.   My opinion is that positions at BYU for Canadians should be in proportion to the funding BYU receives from Canadians.   Why should my tithing have been used to subsidize BYU while I take out student loans to attend a more expensive University in Canada?

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There are thousands of bishops and stake presidents out there working their butts off.

I am not a bishop or a stake president, though I have served with a stake presidency and as a counsellor to two bishops. My current calling is ward mission leader. I have literally attended at least one lesson with the Elders every evening for the past 11 evenings, often going straight from work to a missionary lesson and then getting home somewhere between 9:30 and 10:00 pm. This past Sunday, I took the Elders to two different lessons that I'd arranged, the first with a recent convert and his wife, the second with a non-member family that I know. Tonight I will go straight from work to ward missionary coordination meeting, followed by an evening of splits that will end, as usual, between 9:30 and 10:00. In other words, I 'work my butt off'.

Please, please, please don't pity me or hope to speak on my behalf. I love what I get to learn about both God and myself as I discover what real consecration looks like. I also have zero qualms that those whose Church responsibilities are full-time and therefore preclude employment have living assistance from the Church. Hell, I'd be happy if they had living assistance from my personal tithing. I love and honour their service, and I feel confident that the Lord loves and honours mine. Life as a Latter-day Saint is so, so sweet!

[sjdawg]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've pretty much stayed out of this thread, until I just read a comment about the stipends elsewhere. There are thousands of bishops and stake presidents out there working their butts off. Some travel great distances to their stake centers several times a month, think of the $ that takes. Besides all the time away from their family. Therefore I think they need to go back to paying bishops/stake presidents. My current stake president was a bishop right before this. His wife is suffering from breast cancer and they have a son on a mission. He will have spent over 10 years at these callings. I think these men need to be paid a stipend too. Hopefully these leaks will change things.

Stake Presidency members and high councilors are allowed to claim travel expenses when their calling requires them to drive long distances

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the controversy is less about what impact the living allowances have on the general authorities and the sacrifices they have made for the Church and more about the impact the living allowances/tithing and other donations funding them have on those who make much less than 120,000$ US per year.  Justifying the allowances by saying 'this isn't what they are used to' comes across to some like saying "this isn't massive luxury, only moderate luxury" or "this is petty cash to these men" or "rich men now once were richer" when they don't think the Church should be providing anyone any luxury at all and not any necessities if they can afford it themselves (which if they were receiving that much income, it is expected they should if they were living frugally as the Church 'expects' the grassroots level to do, they are expected to have sufficient pensions and savings).  Why should the Church attempt to keep General Authorities in the rich lifestyles they are accustomed to?  Only 20% of US population makes over $100,000, worldwide qualifies that as almost filthy rich in this view.

This is not my own point of view, but I can see why this argument doesn't work for many, but may even make things worse.  For me, I don't think we have enough info (or should have what would be necessary to make an accurate judgment of what is actually being provided).  As this article points out, what that income does for them depends on expenses are in their lives:

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/100-000-income-no-big-deal-anymore-1.aspx

Even so, the appearance of the Church providing American style upper middle class income to its top leaders...yeah, I get why that grates for some when they perceive most members as falling into lower middle or less income brackets.

It also seems that most, if not all, candidates for the upper slots in church leadership are rich and/or part of or connect to Mormon royalty.  When was the last time we have seen a working class person called to be an apostle?  You know, maybe a carpenter or fisherman.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I have no problem with GAs being paid. They dedicate their lives and all their time for the rest of their life to the church. The only way out is death, so they should definitely be compensated. And for a multi billion dollar church, they aren't paid as much as they could be paid.