MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's pretty cool we live right here in Davis County, we may have crossed paths and not known it! 

It is!

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That contradicts what Robert Smith stated above and what I've read elsewhere.  Why give an extra allowance if it's included in the salary?  

Do you have a reference stating the parsonage allowance is included in the $10,000 a month salary?

And, why would he need a child allowance?  Maybe he still had children at home?

i guess a benefit is this makes the allowances tax free (if I'm reading correctly).

This dissection that a number of posters are performing may be one reason the Church doesn't release information.  Unless more detailed personal information were to be given...what part was taxed, what part went to necessary expenses, what part went to housing, etc., the dissection rarely accomplishes anything but creating more questions.  I am not saying the inclination to dissect is wrong as I am prone to this myself and it can be quite useful in many situations, but I don't see anyone being satisfied in this case.

The accusations (not here) of money laundering for using BYU to transfer Canadian donations out of the country or of neglect of the poor and needs of the members for having a substantial amount of money sitting in the bank in the UK where apparently there is not the option to move charitable donations outside the country by people who are eager to jump to the wrong conclusions and who then spread their unfounded accusations as if they are proved by a fact they are not proved by is likely another.  Unless the Church provided significant details with the reasoning behind the decisions and likely even then given what I have seen happen with each 'leak', there is a segment of those who are demanding transparency who use the littlest detail as a weapon against the Church whether it is legitimate or not.

OTOH, there are many who are comfortable with the information and whose reaction is 'no big deal' though I have not seen anyone (there may be some not speaking up, of course, or that I have missed) say "well, this is reassuring and helps put to rest a small part of my concerns" with any of the leaks and that leads me to assume it wouldn't happen for many if more info was released unless it was extremely detailed and with explanations and no guarantee that even this would be sufficient.  Instead, I have seen many, myself included, having conversations we know little about, including discussions of legal limitations in a simplified form which are often quite convoluted in practice.  

Numbers are looked at without knowing more then the superficial context and assumptions are made instead of simply saying this is not enough info to tell us how the Church spends income so we should drop the conversation.  It isn't human nature to be prudent enough to do that, our curiosity causes us to dig into things like terriers where we won't be satisfied unless we learn details that are intrusive into people's personal lives.  If it turns out the stipend was accepted because it was needed to pay extensive medical bills, I suspect few would find it excessive; even the pharmicist goes a little green when she rings up our family drug bill at the beginning of the year.  It helps to know that in a few months that receipt says "0" once we meet our deductible...though when my daughter turned 26, we thought for a time we would have to be moving to a smaller home as we couldn't find any government programs that would help pay; happy ending for a few years at least, the insurance was reinstated when she qualified as a disabled child though.  Hopefully we will be in a position soon where we can downsize out of choice rather than need (forcing my daughter to move at this point would be too traumatic for her and physically overwhelming to me due to other necessary demands on my time), we have been wanting to do so since my son moved out ten years ago.  If it was spent on collecting first edition books of the early Mormon era others might not feel so comfortable...until they were all left to the Church History Dept., or shock that there were massive amounts spent on toys...what Grandkids need $3000 worth of toys a year---I spent that much one year by taking my salary in kind from a toy store I worked at for that very purpose, it was a bit disturbing to add it up at the end, but much of it wasn't toys or to my grandkids even if it was from a store that on the outside appears to be totally frivolous---it could make a difference if you find out those purchases were actually educational material being donated to a local school (which is what happened a number of times I saw when working at the toy store).  

I am not suggesting that General Authorities never spend on useless or frivolous stuff...maybe they have Cocomotion stuffed in the back of their kitchen cupboards because their spouse has an addiction for gadgets as well, I am simply pointing out (and using personal details from my life to show hidden context of a personal nature really matters) to be able to make judgments about the quality of choices being made in regards to the salaries/stipends/allowances of anyone to know whether someone needs that income or whether they could comfortably do with less, we need to know personal details we have no right to know in my opinion.  Any information above that level isn't likely to satisfy most people because we have a natural tendency to want to understand the whys and hows.  Not a bad thing, but intrusive in many cases.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Perhaps the church has discontinued the practice.  I have been out of the church for quite a while. I was clearly told it was a salary.  I agree that it hardly compensated me for the time spent.  Like I said, it didn't make much sense to me and the amount was so small, that I found it more a joke than compensation.  

I admit, I did pretty much spent the money on donuts, seminary breakfasts, reading material and supplies. I probably bought more than I normally would have because I felt like the $599 was not really my money.  What primary teacher, scout leader, bishop or any other leader doesn't pay for things out of his pocket.  Like I said, they told me it was because I was an employee of CES.  I almost asked them if that was the case, is this not a church calling?  Because if it was just a job, I would have quit.  But actually, I loved teaching seminary, so none of it really mattered.  In our ward, if you were a seminary teacher, generally you were not called to another position.  I was called into the bishopric while teaching seminary.  They asked if I wanted to be released from being a seminary teacher.  I told them that I wanted to finish the year out.  Between the two callings, being a seminary teacher is the one that was the hardest.  Facing those kids every morning with yet another lesson that made it worth for them getting up at 5:30 in the morning for is quite the challenge.

As an attorney you should know you were not "an employee" unless you got a W-2. A 1099-misc is for "contract workers." So $599 allowed them to avoid even the required filing for contractual workers. As a teacher paid to teach a class, it is quite legal for them to pay you as a contractual worker. They were not paying you for your time. If so, you would have been an employee. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by RevTestament

[Johnnie Cake]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Did you get your non-believing caboose in trouble with the mods or something?  Is that why I can't give you a rep point? 

Yup on the 12 posts a day, can't start posts and can't receive rep points program.   It wasn't my intent to flout my income...I'll removed that.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 Nevertheless, for 20 hours of class time that would be about $30 per hour and is certainly more than a pittance for many people...except maybe lawyers

Where did you get 20 hours of class time?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Nevertheless, for 20 hours of class time that would be about $30 per hour and is certainly more than a pittance for many people...except maybe lawyers

Note:  CB didn't say $599/month, he said $599 per YEAR.

Also, early morning seminary teachers spend far more time outside of class, preparing, than in class teaching.

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

remember the housing allowance is not completely tax free, they still pay FICA and Medicare taxes on it, just not income tax.

Got it.  Thanks again for taking the time to help and explain this!

[Johnnie Cake]

This right HERE...is why the church needs to open their books and become transparent with their finances.  As a tithe payer I used to pay a full tithing each year and not a net tithe.  Had I known then that only $1.10 of my tithing was actually going to humanitarian aid I would have been furious.  I'm only guessing but if a survey were conducted and the average LDS member were asked to estimate how much the church gives in humanitarian aid each year...I'm going to guess that it would be a whole lot more than $1.10 per member per year.  The only way to remove this misconception is for the church to provide this level of transparency....but I'm guessing that the church would rather have these misconceptions remain in place rather than have the truth become widely known.

I find it interesting that when the church first released these numbers on LDS.org the did so to show just how wonderful they were and how much humanitarian aid they made...and then people began to crunch the numbers and show just how little the church actually paid out...and just as quickly the church removed the humanitarian aid numbers from their site...so we do know that the church does care about what the actual numbers say...they were embarrassed and removed the evidence.  Imagine if they were held accountable...just how much good could come from transparency...maybe fewer malls would be built...but perhaps...just perhaps some good charity could take place in the world

Edited January 12, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This right HERE...is why the church needs to open their books and become transparent with their finances.  As a tithe payer I used to pay a full tithing each year and not a net tithe.  Had I known then that only $1.10 of my tithing was actually going to humanitarian aid I would have been furious.  I'm only guessing but if a survey were conducted and the average LDS member were asked to estimate how much the church gives in humanitarian aid each year...I'm going to guess that it would be a whole lot more than $1.10 per member per year.  The only way to remove this misconception is for the church to provide this level of transparency....but I'm guessing that the church would rather have these misconceptions remain in place rather than have the truth become widely known.

I find it interesting that when the church first released these numbers on LDS.org the did so to show just how wonderful they were and how much humanitarian aid they made...and then people began to crunch the numbers and show just how little the church actually paid out...and just as quickly the church removed the humanitarian aid numbers from their site...so we do know that the church does care about what the actual numbers say...they were embarrassed and removed the evidence.  Imagine if they were held accountable...just how much good could come from transparency...maybe fewer malls would be built...but perhaps...just perhaps some good charity could take place in the world

unofficial rep point

[BillyandJane]

I only read half of these pages so I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but I felt I needed to to chime in just in case it hadn't been. I know tons of people are saying they already knew the full time GAs got paid and some others are saying they should be paid more for all that they do. My issue is that not whether or not they are paid it is that church manuals do not readily admit this. My soon to be missionary son, who is very faithfully preparing to serve, reads such statements as these in his preparation: "All of the work is voluntary. No one is paid for such service." (PMG page 87) Now I understand that the church has begun to redefine some words like translate and "translate", but what do you think is going through my 18 yo son's mind when he reads that? He is buying it hook line and sinker. He is believing what he is being taught at face value. He's going to go out into the world proclaiming in the name of our Savior, a lie.  Is everyone on this board OK with that? Should I be OK with that as his parent? 

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, BillyandJane said:

I only read half of these pages so I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but I felt I needed to to chime in just in case it hadn't been. I know tons of people are saying they already knew the full time GAs got paid and some others are saying they should be paid more for all that they do. My issue is that not whether or not they are paid it is that church manuals do not readily admit this. My soon to be missionary son, who is very faithfully preparing to serve, reads such statements as these in his preparation: "All of the work is voluntary. No one is paid for such service." (PMG page 87) Now I understand that the church has begun to redefine some words like translate and "translate", but what do you think is going through my 18 yo son's mind when he reads that? He is buying it hook line and sinker. He is believing what he is being taught at face value. He's going to go out into the world proclaiming in the name of our Savior, a lie.  Is everyone on this board OK with that? Should I be OK with that as his parent? 

No, and I'm sure the church is going to go over how they've reported this. I'll bet we'll be hearing something during April's General Conference about it, since they are pretty good at speaking about things in the news.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, BillyandJane said:

I only read half of these pages so I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but I felt I needed to to chime in just in case it hadn't been. I know tons of people are saying they already knew the full time GAs got paid and some others are saying they should be paid more for all that they do. My issue is that not whether or not they are paid it is that church manuals do not readily admit this. My soon to be missionary son, who is very faithfully preparing to serve, reads such statements as these in his preparation: "All of the work is voluntary. No one is paid for such service." (PMG page 87) Now I understand that the church has begun to redefine some words like translate and "translate", but what do you think is going through my 18 yo son's mind when he reads that? He is buying it hook line and sinker. He is believing what he is being taught at face value. He's going to go out into the world proclaiming in the name of our Savior, a lie.  Is everyone on this board OK with that? Should I be OK with that as his parent? 

I totally get what you’re saying.

 

We have always been told that our church has no “paid clergy”.  So, when this type of information is released, what do we get from the apologists?  We get, “well the GAs are not clergy they are more like CEOs of a corporation and this pay is peanuts compared to what most CEOs get".

 

But then we see them compared to Billy Graham and others (who ARE clergy) and hear how much more Graham and other clergy get paid compared to our GAs.

 

So, are they underpaid CEOs or paid clergy?

 

I think most members know that they get their expenses covered and some of their living expenses covered (which of course they should be covered).  But, I would imagine they are getting even more than the $10,000 (plus other expenses and allowances) a month now and that really is a good income compared to so many poor members of the church who are struggling and going without in order to pay their tithing. 

 

And many of the leaders getting this salary are already independently wealthy.

 

I’m just not sure how I really feel about this yet either and I’m still letting it absorb.

 

 

(By the way, welcome to the board!)

Edited January 12, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This right HERE...is why the church needs to open their books and become transparent with their finances.  As a tithe payer I used to pay a full tithing each year and not a net tithe.  Had I known then that only $1.10 of my tithing was actually going to humanitarian aid I would have been furious.  I'm only guessing but if a survey were conducted and the average LDS member were asked to estimate how much the church gives in humanitarian aid each year...I'm going to guess that it would be a whole lot more than $1.10 per member per year.  The only way to remove this misconception is for the church to provide this level of transparency....but I'm guessing that the church would rather have these misconceptions remain in place rather than have the truth become widely known.

I find it interesting that when the church first released these numbers on LDS.org the did so to show just how wonderful they were and how much humanitarian aid they made...and then people began to crunch the numbers and show just how little the church actually paid out...and just as quickly the church removed the humanitarian aid numbers from their site...so we do know that the church does care about what the actual numbers say...they were embarrassed and removed the evidence.  Imagine if they were held accountable...just how much good could come from transparency...maybe fewer malls would be built...but perhaps...just perhaps some good charity could take place in the world

The church states pretty plainly everything that tithing money goes towards.  Supporting humanitarian aide is one of several things.  

In keeping with the biblical practice of tithes, Latter-day Saints offer one-tenth of their income to the Church. These funds are used for:

• Providing buildings or places of worship for members around the world. We have thousands of such buildings and continue to open more, sometimes several in a week.
• Providing education programs, including support for our universities and our seminary and institute programs.
• Supporting the Church’s worldwide missionary program.
• Building and operating more than 140 temples around the world and the administration of the world’s largest family history program.
• Supporting the Church’s welfare programs and humanitarian aid, which serve people around the world — both members of the Church as well as those who are not members.

Considering everything they did just in 2015 it seems kind of amazing they pulled all that off for $40 million.

 

[ERayR]

17 minutes ago, BillyandJane said:

I only read half of these pages so I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but I felt I needed to to chime in just in case it hadn't been. I know tons of people are saying they already knew the full time GAs got paid and some others are saying they should be paid more for all that they do. My issue is that not whether or not they are paid it is that church manuals do not readily admit this. My soon to be missionary son, who is very faithfully preparing to serve, reads such statements as these in his preparation: "All of the work is voluntary. No one is paid for such service." (PMG page 87) Now I understand that the church has begun to redefine some words like translate and "translate", but what do you think is going through my 18 yo son's mind when he reads that? He is buying it hook line and sinker. He is believing what he is being taught at face value. He's going to go out into the world proclaiming in the name of our Savior, a lie.  Is everyone on this board OK with that? Should I be OK with that as his parent? 

I have said it before and I will reiterate it here: paraphrasing the immortal words of Obi Wan Kenobi "It is true from a certain point of view".

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church states pretty plainly everything that tithing money goes towards.  Supporting humanitarian aide is one of several things.  

In keeping with the biblical practice of tithes, Latter-day Saints offer one-tenth of their income to the Church. These funds are used for:

• Providing buildings or places of worship for members around the world. We have thousands of such buildings and continue to open more, sometimes several in a week.
• Providing education programs, including support for our universities and our seminary and institute programs.
• Supporting the Church’s worldwide missionary program.
• Building and operating more than 140 temples around the world and the administration of the world’s largest family history program.
• Supporting the Church’s welfare programs and humanitarian aid, which serve people around the world — both members of the Church as well as those who are not members.

Considering everything they did just in 2015 it seems kind of amazing they pulled all that off for $40 million.

 

I skimmed and didn't see the $40 million figure.  Is it in that report? 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I skimmed and didn't see the $40 million figure.  Is it in that report? 

That info was listed here.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is widely known for the humanitarian services that it provides worldwide. Last month, during a lecture given at the University of Oxford, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church said that the Church spends around $40 million on humanitarian, welfare, and other charity projects, worldwide, each year."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, BillyandJane said:

I only read half of these pages so I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but I felt I needed to to chime in just in case it hadn't been. I know tons of people are saying they already knew the full time GAs got paid and some others are saying they should be paid more for all that they do. My issue is that not whether or not they are paid it is that church manuals do not readily admit this. My soon to be missionary son, who is very faithfully preparing to serve, reads such statements as these in his preparation: "All of the work is voluntary. No one is paid for such service." (PMG page 87) Now I understand that the church has begun to redefine some words like translate and "translate", but what do you think is going through my 18 yo son's mind when he reads that? He is buying it hook line and sinker. He is believing what he is being taught at face value. He's going to go out into the world proclaiming in the name of our Savior, a lie.  Is everyone on this board OK with that? Should I be OK with that as his parent? 

I looked up the quote you cited in Preach My Gospel to read it in context. This is what I found:

 

Quote

 

Service

One of the great blessings of membership in the Church is the opportunity to serve. When we give loving service to others, we are serving God. When we are baptized, we covenant to give such service (see Mosiah 18:8–10). We are to become aware of others’ physical and spiritual needs. We then give of our time, talents, and means to help meet those needs. We follow the example of the Savior, who came to serve others. We are to do what Jesus did and become like Him.

Soon after baptism new members receive from priesthood leaders the blessing of a responsibility to help in the Church. This is referred to as a calling. All of the work in the Church is voluntary. No one is paid for such service. When we accept callings, we are sustained publicly in a Church meeting so that other members can acknowledge our calling and provide support. We are also set apart by a priesthood leader and given special blessings to help us fulfill our callings. The Church needs the talents and abilities of every member to fill a wide variety of callings. All callings are important and help build God’s kingdom. We are to accept such callings and work diligently to learn and fulfill our duties. As we do so, we grow in faith, develop new talents and a greater ability to serve, and receive numerous other blessings.

Priesthood holders may be called as home teachers. Home teachers make at least monthly visits to the homes of assigned member families. They teach the gospel, support parents, nurture friendships, and help families prepare to receive and keep temple covenants. Visiting teachers represent the Relief Society by making monthly visits to each adult sister as assigned.

 

Reading the context, I see that it refers to the Church service that is performed by the millions of rank-and-file Church members who render the service on a local (ward and stake) level.

Could it not be explained to your 18-year-old son that this point in Preach My Gospel applies to the rank and file in the Church, but that General Authorities, because they have been called to serve full time at the exclusion of any other livelihood, and have been asked to forsake other careers to do what they do, must of necessity be given enough money to support themselves and their families while they are engaged in their full-time ministry?

I really don't see the difficulty here. I would have grasped the distinction when I was 18. I'm pretty sure I already knew it by the time I went out on a mission.

So, in response to your question, I say that the teaching, in the context in which it is given, is not a lie, and as the father of a missionary, I am wholly OK with my son teaching it in that context.

By the way, I wish your son well on his mission. Where is he bound for, if you don't mind sharing?

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

After all this discussion, I think Canadians should pay tithe to meet USD exchange rate, or 13.16% instead of 10%

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church states pretty plainly everything that tithing money goes towards.  Supporting humanitarian aide is one of several things.  

In keeping with the biblical practice of tithes, Latter-day Saints offer one-tenth of their income to the Church. These funds are used for:

• Providing buildings or places of worship for members around the world. We have thousands of such buildings and continue to open more, sometimes several in a week.
• Providing education programs, including support for our universities and our seminary and institute programs.
• Supporting the Church’s worldwide missionary program.
• Building and operating more than 140 temples around the world and the administration of the world’s largest family history program.
• Supporting the Church’s welfare programs and humanitarian aid, which serve people around the world — both members of the Church as well as those who are not members.

Considering everything they did just in 2015 it seems kind of amazing they pulled all that off for $40 million.

 

Apparently in Canada those bullet points you listed only require 50% to 70% of the tithes and offerings.  That leaves a lot for other activities.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, BillyandJane said:

I only read half of these pages so I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but I felt I needed to to chime in just in case it hadn't been. I know tons of people are saying they already knew the full time GAs got paid and some others are saying they should be paid more for all that they do. My issue is that not whether or not they are paid it is that church manuals do not readily admit this. My soon to be missionary son, who is very faithfully preparing to serve, reads such statements as these in his preparation: "All of the work is voluntary. No one is paid for such service." (PMG page 87) Now I understand that the church has begun to redefine some words like translate and "translate", but what do you think is going through my 18 yo son's mind when he reads that? He is buying it hook line and sinker. He is believing what he is being taught at face value. He's going to go out into the world proclaiming in the name of our Savior, a lie.  Is everyone on this board OK with that? Should I be OK with that as his parent? 

IF you know about this, why are you not teaching your son?

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I looked up the quote you cited in Preach My Gospel to read it in context. This is what I found:

All of the work in the Church is voluntary

Reading the context, I see that it refers to the Church service that is performed by the millions of rank-and-file Church members who render the service on a local (ward and stake) level.

Could it not be explained to your 18-year-old son that this point in Preach My Gospel applies to the rank and file in the Church, but that General Authorities, because they have been called to serve full time at the exclusion of any other livelihood, and have been asked to forsake other careers to do what they do, must of necessity be given enough money to support themselves and their families while they are engaged in their full-time ministry?

I really don't see the difficulty here. I would have grasped the distinction when I was 18. I'm pretty sure I already knew it by the time I went out on a mission.

So, in response to your question, I say that the teaching, in the context in which it is given, is not a lie, and as the father of a missionary, I am wholly OK with my son teaching it in that context.

By the way, I wish your son well on his mission. Where is he bound for, if you don't mind sharing?

 

Yes, there is more context to the quote but the use of "all" is the problem. It's certainly easier to say "all" than "all except for the top 80 church leaders" or something similar.

This isn't an issue that bothers me a ton BUT it does seem that the church could be more accurate in its statements. Also, when there are millions of people serving throughout the world, many serving full time as missionaries, many serving as volunteers in church administration, many volunteering time as they juggle their other full-time duties it seems a fair question to ask why the top leaders get paid at all.

Is it because they need the money since they are working full time? Well, others are volunteering full time. I think I saw the average age of a person called into the Q12 is 59 1/2 which is very near retirement age. Do they need to continue earning 6 figures after retirement age? I'm not suggesting they don't deserve pay for their work, but if they deserve it, so do others. It seems contradictory to call volunteers to serve as volunteers while the top tier are called to serve as employees with a paycheck for life, long after they would have been living on retirement income. Is it just and fair to pay the very top leaders who are the ones who decide who gets paid? There are some valid questions that could be asked by an enterprising media figure with connections in SLC.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Apparently in Canada those bullet points you listed only require 50% to 70% of the tithes and offerings.  That leaves a lot for other activities.

I'd probably have to see the reference before I could comment. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

 

I think most members know that they get their expenses covered and some of their living expenses covered (which of course they should be covered). 

 

If they are getting their living expenses covered, than the US Tax code says that is taxable income.

If it is taxable income, then it needs to be reported on a paystub and a W2.

You can't say that they get their living expenses covered and not be salary unless you are assuming that they are breaking the law.

The only expenses covered that would be tax free would be the direct expenses (direct travel expenses, Office expenses).  Even travel for commuting would be taxable (and reported on paystubs).  There is a provision for a parsonage allowance in the tax code that I explained earlier.

 

 

 

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Could it not be explained to your 18-year-old son that this point in Preach My Gospel applies to the rank and file in the Church, but that General Authorities, because they have been called to serve full time at the exclusion of any other livelihood, and have been asked to forsake other careers to do what they do, must of necessity be given enough money to support themselves and their families while they are engaged in their full-time ministry?

I agree with your assessment of the context, Scott.  Although it really isn't clear.  And likely would not be clear to investigators (since this particular quote is part of one of the lessons).

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

IF you know about this, why are you not teaching your son?

You and Scott both seem to feel that the parent has the responsibility to make sure that this is properly understood by the son.  Does the church also share in the responsibility to publish accurate and clear statements?  Maybe a sidebar saying what Scott said?

And, to circle back to a previous topic, wouldn't sharing church finances with members (as was done pre-1959) in general conference help alleviate any misunderstanding with respect to the stipend received by full-time general authorities?

[bluebell]

I think it's interesting that everyone seems to be in four camps:

-Glad there is a stipend, fine with the amount

-The stipend should be bigger

-The stipend should be smaller 

-There should be no stipend 

And from what I've seen on here and on Facebook, each camp believes their belief is rooted in scripture and also that the church is in the wrong (would be in the wrong) if personal belief isn't followed.

It really highlights that the church is always between a rock and a hard place.  No matter what they do there will always be a part of the membership who believes they need to repent.