MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I've seen all of those opinions expressed too.  This is a difficult topic only because the church hasn't been upfront that there really are paid clergy or leaders (I think it insults the intelligence of members when now it's being claimed that "well the GAs aren't LOCAL clergy", so they are exempt from that claim).

They are paid.  They receive a salary and benefits.  Just be honest about it and I think at least the great majority of the members would accept that these leaders need to at least have their living and travel expenses covered.  But be honest about it and don't claim that it's an "all voluntary church" with unpaid voluntary callings when these men all have been called to serve where they serve too.

Edited January 12, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I'm not comfortable with your comparison. The examples you cite involve short-term, full-time service, unlike that of General Authorities, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve in particular. Missionaries of any age are supported from their own savings, to one degree or another, and from money donated by family, friends and other Church members. That's not apt to be the case with General Authorities.

Your points are worthy of consideration but, in my view, don't justify the conclusion that "top leaders [should not] get paid at all."

Edited January 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I've seen all of those opinions expressed too.  This is a difficult topic only because the church hasn't been upfront that there really are paid clergy or leaders (I think it insults the intelligence of members when now it's being claimed that "well the GAs aren't LOCAL clergy", so they are exempt from that claim).

They are paid.  They receive a salary and benefits.  Just be honest about it and I think at least the great majority of the members would accept that these leaders need to at least have their living and travel expenses covered.  But be honest about it and don't claim that it's an "all voluntary church" with unpaid voluntary callings when these men all have been called to serve where they serve too.

Are they being paid as clergy, or as organizational administrators?
Semantics and hairsplitting I know, but it does make a difference.

Are they being paid for teaching in general conference, extending callings, ordaining people, giving ordinances, etc?
Or are they being paid for running the business side of things.  Even non-profit companies need staff.

[jbarm]

One thing I don't see mentioned in this thread is that the amount being paid can be declined by the General Authority on an individual level.

It is my understanding that many of them do decline the pay from the Church, much as many senior administrators of the Church, who made their money elsewhere, work for free for the Church (this is direct knowledge on my part).

Those who had long and lucrative careers most likely do not take the money (Elder Nelson certainly made a lot of money as a prominent heart surgeon).  President Eyring has been with the Church since he was a relatively young man, so I know he has never made much in the way of money.  Same thing for President Monson.

I would concede, however, that people will ALWAYS have some issue with how much others are paid.  Human nature dictates that we see ourselves as being more valuable to the organization than other people. If someone makes more than me, then they are just not worth it.

 

jb

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by jbarm

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I've seen all of those opinions expressed too.  This is a difficult topic only because the church hasn't been upfront that there really are paid clergy or leaders (I think it insults the intelligence of members when now it's being claimed that "well the GAs aren't LOCAL clergy", so they are exempt from that claim).

They are paid.  They receive a salary and benefits.  Just be honest about it and I think at least the great majority of the members would accept that these leaders need to at least have their living and travel expenses covered.  But be honest about it and don't claim that it's an "all voluntary church" with unpaid voluntary callings when these men all have been called to serve where they serve too.

I've known about the living stipend since i was a teenager, but i honestly have no memory of where the information came from.  Not my parents, but otherwise i'm unsure on that.  I know that Pres. Hinckley discussed it in 1985 in a general conference, but I'm sure that wasn't the source either.  

I haven't seen anyone on Facebook being upset about it not being well known, but I stopped following most of the conversations yesterday so that might have been an often mentioned issue that I missed.

Edited January 12, 2017 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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).

It's clear within the context. The material says nothing about General Authorities. In the context here, the investigator could be expected to have in mind rank-and-file Church members -- as he is thinking of becoming -- not General Authorities.
Furthermore, missionaries are not expected to memorize and present scripted material, as we did when I served in the 1970s. Rather, they are expected to learn the material and give it in their own words, allowing a much greater degree of flexibility than in the old days. If the missionary perceived the need, there is nothing that would forbid him from briefly mentioning that General Authorities do receive a living allowance and why they do.

Quote

 

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?

 

I never said the parent had that responsibility. But if a knowledgeable parent was anxious about it, it seems more than reasonable that he would be sure to give his prospective missionary son or daughter a clear conception, rather than leaving it for others to do so and then complaining later if they don't.

 

Quote

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?

That seems like overkill. As things are, it doesn't strike me that the Church intentionally makes a secret of the stipend.

Edited to add:

For the record, I would have no objection if the Church were to include a "sidebar" such as you suggest, say, within the Preach My Gospel lesson. I'm just not greatly bothered that there isn't one.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Are they being paid as clergy, or as organizational administrators?
Semantics and hairsplitting I know, but it does make a difference.

I'd say both (and you could ask the same question of Stake Presidents or Bishops who aren't paid but split their time between ministration and administration).

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've known about the living stipend since i was a teenager, but i honestly have no memory of where the information came from.  Not my parents, but otherwise i'm unsure on that.  I haven't seen anyone on Facebook being upset about it not being well known, but I stopped following most of the conversations yesterday so that might have been an often mentioned issue that I missed.

I think most members realize they may get expense reimbursements, etc.  It's the set salary amount that is different than what is represented by the "all voluntary" no paid clergy statements.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

 

 

Hmm.

While I might place myself in the first "camp," I can't see myself as saying the Church "would be in the wrong" if that were to change somehow. I'm just not that doctrinaire about this matter.

So I can't say that the the above accurately characterizes me.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, jbarm said:

One thing I don't see mentioned in this thread is that the amount being paid can be declined by the General Authority on an individual level.

It is my understanding that many of them do decline the pay from the Church, much as many senior administrators of the Church, who made their money elsewhere, work for free for the Church (this is direct knowledge on my part).

I've wondered this too.  Another reason that complete honesty and transparency would be a good thing (so assumptions aren't made on either side of this topic).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

All work in the Church is voluntary, even if someone gets get a stipend. A stipend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend) is not payment for a service.

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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).

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?

This is why we have been counseled since 1830 (at least) to read the scriptures. D&C 75: 24-26, “Behold, I say unto you, that it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world. Wherefore, I, the Lord, give unto you this commandment, that ye obtain places for your families, inasmuch as your brethren are willing to open their hearts. And let all such as can obtain places for their families, and support of the church for them, not fail to go into the world, whether to the east or to the west, or to the north, or to the south.” The practice of supporting general authorities and missionaries is not unprecedented in the Church. Publishing GA stipends does nothing to promote understanding of the support that is mandated in scripture.

As to the Church’s responsibility to help parents: “God has revealed a pattern of spiritual progress for individuals and families through ordinances, teaching, programs, and activities that are home centered and Church supported. Church organizations and programs exist to bless individuals and families and are not ends in themselves. Priesthood and auxiliary leaders and teachers seek to assist parents (D&C 83:4, “All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age”), not to supersede or replace them.” (Handbook 2).

The Church has no responsibility to be “transparent” in her finances. The scriptural references dealing with finance have nothing at all to do with this secular expectation, and secular principles such as this are not laid out in any of our scriptures.

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Are they being paid as clergy, or as organizational administrators?
Semantics and hairsplitting I know, but it does make a difference.

Are they being paid for teaching in general conference, extending callings, ordaining people, giving ordinances, etc?
Or are they being paid for running the business side of things.  Even non-profit companies need staff.

They get a parsonage allowance, which is for clergy. If they're not really clergy, then they're breaking the law. 

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417.html

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think most members realize they may get expense reimbursements, etc.  It's the set salary amount that is different than what is represented by the "all voluntary" no paid clergy statements.

I haven't personally run into any members that did not know about the stipend but I'm sure you are right and they are out there.  

I agree it's important the info is out there for members to have.

 

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't personally run into any members that did not know about the stipend but I'm sure you are right and they are out there.  

I agree it's important the info is out there for members to have.

 

I knew about it from way back. Maybe from my seminary teacher? But I knew a lot of missionaries on my mission who thought the 12 and 3 were unpaid. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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).

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?

 

I think parents have the primary responsibility to teach their children regarding the church and the gospel.  The church is supplemental at best.

 

I think the church has published many times that the general authorities receive a stipend (or salary, or living expenses or whatever you want to call it, the IRS would consider all the same thing)

Just because one can site an exampled where it is not stated doesn't mean their aren't plenty of places where it is stated. If one is looking for one published source that contains everything, on all sources, one would be setting themselves up for disappointment.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

All work in the Church is voluntary, even if someone gets get a stipend. A stipend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend) is not payment for a service.

 

It's voluntary in the sense that no one is being forced but you can't say someone is volunteering their time when they receive benefits and a $120K stipend by contract. That is weak apologetics and I think most people will reject calling someone an unpaid volunteer because they get a "stipend" instead of a "salary". Saying it's not payment for service is a bit disingenuous.

 

If you don't believe me you could try a little social media experiment. Go onto your personal FB account and ask a question, leaving the church out of it.

"If I have a contract to receive a $120,000 stipend each year would I be considered an unpaid volunteer?"

Then see what kind of results you get.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

They get a parsonage allowance, which is for clergy. If they're not really clergy, then they're breaking the law. 

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417.html

I would think they have all of the qualifications to be considered Clergy.

If one of the apostles isn't clergy (according to tax law) then I don't know who is.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

All work in the Church is voluntary, even if someone gets get a stipend. A stipend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend) is not payment for a service.

 

To the IRS, a wage, a salary and a stipend are the same thing.  It is taxable income received (subject to the statutory exemption of the parsonage allowance, which is only subject to FICA and Medicare)

[Gray]

Check out this salary survey for senior leadership of large churches. $100k is at the lower end. 

 

http://leadnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-Salary-Report_082914_reduced-print1.pdf

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I've not been interested enough in this thread to read it thoroughly, but in case this hasn't been presented yet, the FairMormon wiki has an informative entry on this subject.

Among the cogent points it makes is that if there were no stipends, only the independently wealthy could serve in high Church callings.

It also highlights times in the past when this matter has been openly discussed, thus rebutting the notion that the Church has not been forthright about it. I'm afraid it's another case of the myopic mindset "I [or someone I know] didn't know it, so that means the Church hasn't been forthright."

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours 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'm very appreciative of all of the charity work that the LDS church does in the world.  But seriously bluebell...are you happy that only an average of $1.10 in humanitarian aid is donated per member per year for 25 years?  Had the church not disclosed this amount and then quickly reversed themselves and took that web page down...we would have NEVER even known that so little has been donated.  If they were proud of the amount donated they would still be proudly showing it...but they weren't...it exposed too much information...information that was unkind on the cherished image that the church wants to project. They would rather have a false perception remain intact than be transparent and expose themselves and their $1.10 per member donations reality to the world.

I understand that members of this board will support any position of the church and will argue to their dying day that non-transparency is the correct path forward...but seriously...$1.10? You support that measly sum?  I don't believe that anyone who has donated 10's of thousands of dollars over their lifetime can be happy knowing that despite making that 10's of thousands of dollars donation only a mere  $85.80 will have gone to humanitarian aid in their lifetime.  It is only in the NOT KNOWING that a member would be ok with this....and that is exactly how the church obviously wants it to remain.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've not been interested enough in this thread to read it thoroughly, but in case this hasn't been presented yet, the FairMormon wiki has an informative entry on this subject.

Among the cogent points it makes is that if there were no stipends, only the independently wealthy could serve in high Church callings.

 

 

Scott...GA's of both sexes should be compensated...so should Bishops, SP, RS presidents and those who clean the toilets...but I understand that this is not practical...so I'd settle on just the men and women at the top receiving equal pay.

[BillyandJane]

3 hours 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 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 I can explain it to him and of course I will do so, especially now that I have validation of long believed rumors. My point is, there are MANY people who will read this and like I said, will just take it at face value, and apply what it is saying to ALL church positions. What of those young kids who are just studying on their own who don't have member families or families that don't care to keep up on the latest Gospel Doctrine Boards? It smells of dishonesty and needs to be changed. It would not take much. Just add "Those priesthood holders whose callings.demand their full time attention are compensated at fair market value." They could even put it in a footnote, just put it their somewhere. 

And thanks for your well wishes. He graduates in June so his papers can't be handed in quite yet. 

 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, BillyandJane said:

 My point is, there are MANY people who will read this and like I said, will just take it at face value, and apply what it is saying to ALL church positions.

Some people will believe anything.

Others can just ask the Bishop (stake president, EQ President, 11 year old scout leader, RS President, High Counselor) and they will find out that they are not paid by the church for their ecclesiastical positions.  Then they will know the truth.

I don't think it is ever wise and apply any specific case to a general population.  I think it is much better to investigate before passing judgments.

The church has on many occasions, throughout my lifetime stated that full time church positions get a salary (or stipend, or living allowance or whatever you want to call it, its the same thing)

I don't think it is a secret (if it is, someone should get fired for keeping it so poorly). It is even found in the D&C.

Obviously, not every member knows about it, you would be surprised on what some people don't know. there will always be things people don't know about.  That is why we are here.  To learn and to grow.  How can we learn anything if we are expected to know everything?