MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Compared to political leaks LDS leaks are dull and boring.

Not if you read aloud the LEAKS with breathless intonation.  "NOW we come to instructions on how ORDER paper clips.  Obviously if you try to borrow some from your neighbor, you will be subject to SEVERE (read that as "Danite") sanctions.  This memo has a watermark that looks like a blood stain."

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where are you getting this from?  

They can hardly contribute to worldwide programs with money that can only be spent in Canada itself.  That can pay for buildings and temples with Canada and the missionary and other work within its borders, but nowhere in the scriptures does it require tithe and offerings only to be used for the nation the tithers belong to.

Agreed but the bullet points were for church work that takes place within Canada.

[JAHS]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

To add humanitarian aid does not include fast offering assistance.  When I was a bishop we did about $40k plus a year for fast offering assistance.  I think we were a bit higher than norm but also lower.  So assume the average is $25k per ward/branch.  I am not sure the number of wards and branches but it is probably around 30,000.   Do the math. That is about $750,000,000 per year is food rent and other aid to members and in my ward even at times non members.

You were giving ward members $40,000 in assistance?  Wow.  During my time in the bishopric it was rare that we exceeded a tenth of that amount in a year.  So I'm not sure you can extrapolate your numbers the way you did.

For F.O. last year my California ward took in about $34,000 and spent $17,000. In 2015 we took in $37,000 and spent $27,000. The needs varies from year to year.

 

[Teancum]

56 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You were giving ward members $40,000 in assistance?  Wow.  During my time in the bishopric it was rare that we exceeded a tenth of that amount in a year.  So I'm not sure you can extrapolate your numbers the way you did.

Just my best guess.  So based on my ward and stake.   So your Ward only did $4000 of FO assistance?   Were you in a wealthy Ward?

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

For F.O. last year my California ward took in about $34,000 and spent $17,000. In 2015 we took in $37,000 and spent $27,000. The needs varies from year to year.

 

There he has never been a year that I am aware of that my ward has run and FO surplus.  Our stake has but not always.  

[Calm]

6 hours 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 think it would be helpful to clarify that they are not paid to preach, but are given support in order to minister to the Saints and others.  And make it clear it is enough these days that whether technically a living allowance or a salary, it is going to be perceived by most as a salary because the average person will see it as more than enough to cover necessities and still have plenty leftover for other things that most may not be able to afford.  I think in most people's minds the ministering qualifies as "clergy work" these days, so we should stop saying we have unpaid clergy ( I have said this for over 15 years, btw)...especially since there is nothing inherently wrong with paid clergy,especially if they do more than preach.

I do feel if ministers' work is solely preparing sermons, then you run into the problem that their paycheck depends solely on whether the message is approved of or not and temptation to compromise is great.  It is still a problem for those who do more than just preach; our GAs can be excommunicated if they started preaching stuff contrary to our doctrine, for example ..but I think there is less focus on the preaching, other work is looked at and may be highly valued (so what if our pastor scolds us, we know he means well because he is there when we are sick, afflicted, need someone to talk to, helping with our kids, etc. so we listen and don't threatened him with losing his paycheck even if we are not always happy with what we hear).   This trust of their commitment to their members as people and not just the source of a paycheck would, in my expectations, give greater freedom to preaching choices.  But any person, unless they are a jerk, is going to be affected by what people think about them and it will be hard to stand up and criticize and call to repentance when one knows it may cause hurt feelings or even offense even if one is financially independent of those listening.  So expressing it as 'not paying for preaching'  is less for me about ensuring the minister is listening to God more than worrying about pleasing those he serves and more about conveying the message that the minister is speaking from the heart and not from the wallet.  For me making the point 'we pay for weekday full time ministering, but not Sunday preaching' matters on a symbolic level, a relationship level, with recognition that on a practical level it makes no difference, so it shouldn't be used as if it means inherently higher, purer morals.

If that position can't be clearly made in our materials, I would prefer to just phrase it as 'we pay those who that are called into full time, lifetime callings a comfortable, but not excessive amount'.  And mention there are a few other temporary positions that require significant lifechanging sacrifices for a long enough period of time, that those called are financially supported so as not to limit those who can serve to those who are financially independent.

If we want to make the claim that it is a "modest amount", we need to compare it to lower income salaries and not higher even if it is "market value".  "Modest" when it comes to money generally means small amount, not just smaller than then the typically high amounts similar jobs get.  If claims are made that leaders are making financial sacrifices to take these callings, then actual financial information showing it is a sacrifice should be provided (and I don't mean getting fewer, but still a number of luxuries).  We need to stop saying things the traditional way if it doesn't actually mean the same thing any more.

If a church can be run with parttime volunteers, I think still that is the best way to go...but there are some valuable pros on the side of the paid/full time vs. unpaid/after work volunteer work, so I don't think less of a faith that chooses that route or a minister.  And at a certain level of size/complexity, it becomes a necessity and we should make it clear we accept that.  Less things are likely to fall through the cracks if one person is doing the work rather than 3-6, greater consistency in treatment over time if the job doesn't have a new face ever year or so or even every five years (love to know the average stay in a congregations for priests and pastors before they move/are moved), if they are good at their job trust as families grow...maybe it helps youth to stay connected to their leaders if it is the same faces (I would love to see a study to see if it makes much of a difference).  Loyalty and connections are deepened with time if relationships are decent to begin with.

I do think having people not applying for callings and instead being not involved in the search and decision making process until it is time to accept or reject a calling is extremely important, though it can't prevent someone from altering their opinions in an attempt to gain attention or curry favor in hopes that will get them called to some prestigious calling.  Otoh, I don't think there is anything wrong with volunteering for most callings as happens in other faiths, I have done so for most of mine since I became an adult (every new ward, I let leaders know I loved to teach Primary, when health went bad...ward library works really well for me; when I saw a class that needed a more consistent teacher I volunteered and when I could no longer be consistent, I told them to find someone new immediately), but it isn't like the callings I have gone for were the status/power ones.  I think those should not be volunteered for at all in our faith.  However, that means at times we get leaders who don't really want to be there and that can be a huge problem even if they are sincerely struggling to change their attitude.

If we want to brag about how we treat our leaders, it should imo probably be limited to "our leaders don't apply, they get drafted" and leave off claims having to do with money.  It is too complicated to explain the nuances in a sound bite and it makes it sound like we may be claiming something we should not be saying (such as the confusing section in the PMG referred to above) and some claims require documentation to be appropriately made, again in my opinion.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Agreed but the bullet points were for church work that takes place within Canada.

Not really if they are using terms such as "worldwide".  I don't know any Canadian who would understand that to mean "limited to Canada".

[Calm]

"around the world...worldwide... around the world...which serve people around the world"

Please explain to me how that suggests in any way Church work that only takes place within Canada.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

To add humanitarian aid does not include fast offering assistance.  When I was a bishop we did about $40k plus a year for fast offering assistance.  I think we were a bit higher than norm but also lower.  So assume the average is $25k per ward/branch.  I am not sure the number of wards and branches but it is probably around 30,000.   Do the math. That is about $750,000,000 per year is food rent and other aid to members and in my ward even at times non members.

Iirc, when I last looked it was 30,016.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

I just wanted to point out that the law doesn't see a distinction.  Most critics will not see a distinction.  Most accountants will not see a distinction. Most lawyers will not see a distinction.

And if you don't have time and space or want to take the time and space to ensure the distinction is understood, probably best not to use it, imo.

[Calm]

7 hours 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.

Clergy in other faiths often include the organizational administrating tasks in their job description, so I think a better, more precise term than "clergy" needs to found.

I would be interested to see if "preaching" has the same issue.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours 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.

That it can be declined is useless information without data demonstrating it has been declined by those who can afford to do so and those who haven't declined it needed it.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Agreed but the bullet points were for church work that takes place within Canada.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The bullet points were for the world, not just Canada. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Scott...GA's of both sexes should be compensated...

There are only male GAs and all GAs are compensated if my memory serves.  Noncompensated Seventies and auxiliary leaders are General Officers, not GAs.

There are no lifetime, full time female officers who are not getting paid the same as the men.  Nor are then any temporary male officers who are getting paid more than women.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not really if they are using terms such as "worldwide".  I don't know any Canadian who would understand that to mean "limited to Canada".

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"around the world...worldwide... around the world...which serve people around the world"

Please explain to me how that suggests in any way Church work that only takes place within Canada.

 

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The bullet points were for the world, not just Canada. 

Yes, the bullets said "worldwide" but, weren't they all activities that take place in Canada (as part of the world)?  Building chapels, temples, sending out missionaries, etc. 

[Calm]

Yes, but most, if not all know that it is taking place outside of Canada as well and many places need help in paying for it.

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Are you saying that the ward gives $100k in assistance each year or that it collects $100k in fast offerings?

$100,000 is mind-blowing to me based on my experience.

Over $100,000 goes out.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Over $100,000 goes out.

I need to increase my Fast Offering contribution, then!  I'll get right on it!  

[Stargazer]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 2:26 AM, mfbukowski said:

First of all, cut all those salaries by at least 11% because those individuals give back at least that much to the organization which pays them!

The salaries are low to start with, but even with the low salaries the quotes are at least 11 or 12% or more higher than reality

And no one is counting the time away from families, time writing sermons, articles, other meetings which other executives might take care of as part of their usual 9-5 jobs with Wednesdays off for golf and 3 hour martini lunches.

Chiming in here late as usual (in retirement I seem to have less time to contribute here than ever before, hmmm), I just finished reading "Lengthen Your Stride," the biography of Spencer W Kimball as President of the Church.  If his work schedule as an 80 year old bore any similarity to that of the rest of the Q12/FP, then these men are woefully underpaid (in temporal terms), and would be even if they doubled their salaries.

[sdc999]

 

What if there was NO money?  By this, I mean, if all stipends and perks ceased, would all of those members in those positions stay?  I would bet that all of the GA's would remain.  I would bet most, but not all on the second level would remain.   I would think that you would see mission presidents that would no longer be able to be in that position (not all).  As it has been mentioned before, most receive these callings later in life when they are finished with their careers.

So what does all of this mean?  It means that it is similar to other faiths where there are a lot of members that offer their time free of charge to do things on behalf of the church.  There are a few in our church that do this.  They work 40+ hours a week for zero pay.  

I've never been a fan of members saying that the GA's are not paid ministers.  Semantics.  Because, members sure like to emphasize conference and the fact that they are going to be taught by the Lord's anointed.  And, as it stands, the Lord's anointed get paid (call it what you wish) to be in that position.

AND IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL THAT THEY GET PAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   The issue arises, once again, from folklore allowed to run rampant without correction.   Yes, I know everyone on this board has known since they were being breastfed but that is NOT the case throughout all of mormonland. I just had  conversation with a well adjusted young man (upper 20's) who was taught just the opposite throughout his life.  From his parents (dad was a bishop and has served in many callings for his entire life), seminary and even while a missionary he proclaimed the "no pay" mantra.  He shared that he never heard any different from any missionary friends, or anyone.  Until now!  Now, he says his dad is singing a different tune which is what I have believed about many members.  When they are confronted with a different 'truth', rather than saying they were wrong, they erase the error of their history as if that was the tune they have always sung.  And this isn't limited to mormons.  It's society in general.  Nobody likes to say they were wrong.  

[rongo]

15 hours 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.

Only the independently wealthy *do* serve in the FP, Q12, and 1 and 2 Q70. 

Can anyone name any GA from North America in the last 40 years who earned, say, less than $50,000 and wasn't a lawyer, doctor, business executive, professor, or university president? In the past, many also made money being on the boards of Church-owned businesses. While it isn't a requirement per se, it does seem to be a de facto, unwritten custom to only select GAs from among men who are very wealthy before they are called. And then they get $120,000 + for life. 

[rongo]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

There he has never been a year that I am aware of that my ward has run and FO surplus.  Our stake has but not always.  

My FO income and expenses range from around $23,000 to $30,000. I am usually one of the only wards to run a surplus, and our stake as a whole is negative. Bishop Burton told us that the Church overall has run a FO deficit with the shortfall obviously coming out of tithing since 2007 (this was a few years ago, when he was Presiding Bishop).

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

My FO income and expenses range from around $23,000 to $30,000. I am usually one of the only wards to run a surplus, and our stake as a whole is negative. Bishop Burton told us that the Church overall has run a FO deficit with the shortfall obviously coming out of tithing since 2007 (this was a few years ago, when he was Presiding Bishop).

The last unit I was the financial clerk in had a huge FO surplus all the time.  This could be explained possibly by the fact that it was a smallish YSA branch, and the branch presidency was composed of rather well off, mostly retired men who took the admonition to give a generous FO quite seriously.  But even discounting them, the branch would still have had a surplus.  I guess many of the members were still living at home with their parents.

[Atheist Mormon]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

There are only male GAs and all GAs are compensated if my memory serves.  Noncompensated Seventies and auxiliary leaders are General Officers, not GAs.

There are no lifetime, full time female officers who are not getting paid the same as the men.  Nor are then any temporary male officers who are getting paid more than women.

I was asking myself this Q. way back then (1980), why all the leaders were male...(this was before my feminist, intellectual naive days). I stand amazed to see this status quo is still well & alive 40 years later.

I wonder what is (or how much longer) it going to take to wake up to reality.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Maybe from General Conference? President Hinckley:

 

Probably not directly, but I'm sure that informed my seminary teacher (I was in grade school in '85)