MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Danzo said:

I guess as long as you aren't talking to anyone else, your definition should be fine.

Now that's creepy.

[Rain]

18 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.

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

 

This has reminded me of Elder Eyrings talk about getting out of debt and he and his wife's inspiration to do so. They sold some property to pay off their house I believe. 

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

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).

I'm ok with transparency. Assumptions will still be made though. Assumptions will always be made when we don't have God's knowledge. A lot of people who are for transparency talk about how this would be better if the church were more open,  but it's never going to stop in this life.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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. 

Since when is $50,000 a year considered "independently wealthy"?

Monson certainly wasn't wealthy when he was called, neither was Packer. I think your point is generally true but that doesn't mean it's universally true.

 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

 

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. 

They were, but I guess i'm still not quite understanding what you are getting at.

We know that tithing from the US (and likely Canada too) goes to other countries to provide things that the tithing of local members couldn't cover.  I've shared one personal story in the past of a Mexican bus driver taking a tour group of LDS to a local chapel and thanking them with tears for paying their tithing because it build his chapel.  

 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Just when we were becoming friends you drag out tired and overused cliches and tropes and disengage. Disappointed

"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." 

I did not drag out a tired and overused cliche.  I simply stated what you did, as your quote above shows.  That statement was both absolute as well as painted all members of this board with the same brush.  

Any disappointment you feel should be focused inward.  All I did was acknowledge what you said.   

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They were, but I guess i'm still not quite understanding what you are getting at.

We know that tithing from the US (and likely Canada too) goes to other countries to provide things that the tithing of local members couldn't cover.  I've shared one personal story in the past of a Mexican bus driver taking a tour group of LDS to a local chapel and thanking them with tears for paying their tithing because it build his chapel.  

 

We've established that roughly 50% to 70% of the tithes and offerings collected in Canada are sent to the US, funneled through BYU because that's what Canadian law allows, right?

That means that 30% to 50% of the tithes and offerings collect in Canada stay there presumably to support those items on your bullet list (the portion of those things that happen within Canada).  Am I mistaken?

[halconero]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Since when is $50,000 a year considered "independently wealthy"?

Monson certainly wasn't wealthy when he was called, neither was Packer. I think your point is generally true but that doesn't mean it's universally true.

 

TIL that I'm independently wealthy...

I'll have to tell the bank I'm negotiating with for a house loan. Maybe this will bring done my interest rates.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We've established that roughly 50% to 70% of the tithes and offerings collected in Canada are sent to the US, funneled through BYU because that's what Canadian law allows, right?

That means that 30% to 50% of the tithes and offerings collect in Canada stay there presumably to support those items on your bullet list (the portion of those things that happen within Canada).  Am I mistaken?

I really don't know.

We don't know what % of US tithing dollars stay in the US or go to other countries either.  It makes sense that the church would organize tithing in conjunction with international law so that each dollar can go as far as possible, but a lot of what we actually know is limited.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Since when is $50,000 a year considered "independently wealthy"?

Monson certainly wasn't wealthy when he was called, neither was Packer. I think your point is generally true but that doesn't mean it's universally true.

 

Not that long ago.

In 2015, the relative value of $50,000.00 from 1980 ranges from $124,000.00 to $315,000.00.

Monson and Packer were called as GAs long before 1980.  I'm sure they were doing better than most people in the world when they were called. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/13/2017 at 7:07 AM, rongo said:

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. 

 

On 1/13/2017 at 8:57 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Since when is $50,000 a year considered "independently wealthy"?

Monson certainly wasn't wealthy when he was called, neither was Packer. I think your point is generally true but that doesn't mean it's universally true.

 

I don't think it's even "generally true." And I don't for a moment accept it as a given.

As HJW quite correctly points out, making more than $50,000 a year doesn't make a person independently wealthy. In today's economy it makes him scarcely able to support a family.

Nor does membership in any of the professions named by rongo necessarily make one independently wealthy.

It scarcely seems possible to me, but I'm wondering if rongo doesn't grasp the meaning of the term independently wealthy. Unless he is intimately Iacquainted with circumstances of each and every General Authority from North America called in the last 40 years, he can only guess that they are all independently wealthy, and it would be a bad guess indeed.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not that long ago.

In 2015, the relative value of $50,000.00 from 1980 ranges from $124,000.00 to $315,000.00.

Monson and Packer were called as GAs long before 1980.  I'm sure they were doing better than most people in the world when they were called. 

But were they independently wealthy? That was  rongo's assertion.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But were they independently wealthy? That was  rongo's assertion.

 

Beats me.  I'd say "independently wealthy" is a rather subjective determination.  To most in the world today, someone who makes 50,000 a year is independently wealthy.  To most of us in rich world, that isn't independently wealthy, I think. 

So I'd say to most in the world, at the time that Monson and Packer were first called, they each were probably in the top 99 percent in the world as wage earners go and thus would probably be considered independently wealthy.  But for US residents, at the time, likely not, but I'd also guess even for the US they were probably above average.  In the sum of it, I'd have no problem calling most US wage earners independently wealthy in relation to the world's residents as a whole. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Beats me.  I'd say "independently wealthy" is a rather subjective determination.  To most in the world today, someone who makes 50,000 a year is independently wealthy.  To most of us in rich world, that isn't independently wealthy, I think. 

So I'd say to most in the world, at the time that Monson and Packer were first called, they each were probably in the top 99 percent in the world as wage earners go and thus would probably be considered independently wealthy.  But for US residents, at the time, likely not, but I'd also guess even for the US they were probably above average.  In the sum of it, I'd have no problem calling most US wage earners independently wealthy in relation to the world's residents as a whole. 

I submit that you don't grasp the meaning of the term either. Did you click on the link I gave?

Independently wealthy means that if your income disappeared and you had no other external support, you could get by from existing assets in providing for yourself and your dependents for the rest of your life. And no, it really isn't a subjective determination. Either you have enough money to do it or you don't.

Aren't you an accountant of some sort? I marvel that I should have to explain this to you.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that you don't grasp the meaning of the term either. Did you click on the link I gave?

Independently wealthy means that if your income disappeared and you had no other support, you could get by from existing assets in providing for yourself and your dependents for the rest of your life.

Aren't you an accountant of some sort? I marvel that I should have to explain this to you.

I wonder how retirement in the US would qualify a person under the definition of independently wealthy.

Quote

independently wealthy(Adjective)

Possessing enough wealth that one does not need financial support from another person and does not require income from employment.

By definition retirement indicates a person no longer requires income from active employment. So if the brethren are retired, and not living paycheck to paycheck on social security, maybe they do meet the definition of independently wealthy

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder how retirement in the US would qualify a person under the definition of independently wealthy.

By definition retirement indicates a person no longer requires income from active employment. So if the brethren are retired, and not living paycheck to paycheck on social security, maybe they do meet the definition of independently wealthy

 

The key is differentiating between personal assets and external support.

Retirement typically is funded from a pension. So I guess it depends on whether you define a pension as a personal asset or as support provided by one's former employer. I would say the latter, as pension payments cease when one dies as opposed to being continuously paid to the estate of the deceased. Moreover, if the former employer went bankrupt, the pension payments would probably cease.

A 401K fund, on the other hand, is a personal asset, as it totally belongs to the former employee (minus income taxes) and would be part of his estate if he died.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that you don't grasp the meaning of the term either. Did you click on the link I gave?

Independently wealthy means that if your income disappeared and you had no other external support, you could get by from existing assets in providing for yourself and your dependents for the rest of your life. And no, it really isn't a subjective determination. Either you have enough money to do it or you don't.

Aren't you an accountant of some sort? I marvel that I should have to explain this to you.

 

Submit away, and continue to marvel, then.  I certainly did not catch myself up on any particular argument, nor did I visit any link you offered.  I merely showed that it wasn't all that long ago that $50,000 dollars was quite a lot of money to earn a year, even in the US. 

As for independently wealthy.  Any one of us could "get by" if our income disappeared.  We may have to learn to live like the rest of the world, but that doesn't matter.  Rest assured, what's sitting in our 401ks or other saving plans is far more than most people in the world will ever have and far more than they will have to live the rest of their lives on.  So, I'd continue to assert it's a subjective determination. 

I'm no accountant of any sort, no.  Got me mixed up with someone else, I guess. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Since when is $50,000 a year considered "independently wealthy"?

I was picking an amount out of the air to represent lower-middle class/ middle-class. That figure might be higher or lower than $50,000 --- who knows? I should have used the general economic level terms instead of a rough amount.

Monson certainly wasn't wealthy when he was called, neither was Packer. I think your point is generally true but that doesn't mean it's universally true.

I am not aware of a single North American General Authority who comes from a lower-middle/middle-class economic background. Including President Monson and President Packer when they were called. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Submit away, and continue to marvel, then.  I certainly did not catch myself up on any particular argument, nor did I visit any link you offered.  I merely showed that it wasn't all that long ago that $50,000 dollars was quite a lot of money to earn a year, even in the US. 

As for independently wealthy.  Any one of us could "get by" if our income disappeared.  We may have to learn to live like the rest of the world, but that doesn't matter.  Rest assured, what's sitting in our 401ks or other saving plans is far more than most people in the world will ever have and far more than they will have to live the rest of their lives on.  So, I'd continue to assert it's a subjective determination. 

 

If you had to submit yourself to a lifestyle of poverty just to sustain yourself on existing assets, I don't think any reasonable person would regard you as independently wealthy.

Quote

I'm no accountant of any sort, no.  Got me mixed up with someone else, I guess. 

That's obvious now, given your strained definition of "independently wealthy."

Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I was picking an amount out of the air to represent lower-middle class/ middle-class. That figure might be higher or lower than $50,000 --- who knows? I should have used the general economic level terms instead of a rough amount.

 

 

I am not aware of a single North American General Authority who comes from a lower-middle/middle-class economic background. Including President Monson and President Packer when they were called. 

Your rash assertion still doesn't work. Being upper-middle class -- or even upper class -- in no way equates to being independently wealthy.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I was picking an amount out of the air to represent lower-middle class/ middle-class. That figure might be higher or lower than $50,000 --- who knows? I should have used the general economic level terms instead of a rough amount.

I am not aware of a single North American General Authority who comes from a lower-middle/middle-class economic background. Including President Monson and President Packer when they were called. 

How much was Monson's annual income when he was called? Packer's? Unless you know details about their finances before they were called I don't think you're in any position to make that assertion.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you had to submit yourself to a lifestyle of poverty just to sustain yourself on existing assets, I don't think any reasonable person would regard you as independently wealth.

That's obvious now, given your strained definition of "independently wealthy."

Scott, how about you just admit you made a simple mistake instead of piling on an insult?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How much was Monson's annual income when he was called? Packer's? Unless you know details about their finances before they were called I don't think you're in any position to make that assertion.

President Packer was a seminary teacher and administrator. Seminary teachers are typically paid the going rate for teachers in public schools, which never has been very high.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Scott, how about you just admit you made a simple mistake instead of piling on an insult?

I don't understand. What mistake did I make?

Edited to add:

You mean the mistake of thinking he was an accountant? I did admit that.

And pointing out that one's definition is strained is hardly an insult. Disputing definitions is done all the time on this board. I don't recall it being characterized as an insult.

But in case stemelbow views it as an insult, I do apologize to him now. And as a non-accountant myself, I acknowledge that there is no shame in not being an accountant.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you had to submit yourself to a lifestyle of poverty just to sustain yourself on existing assets, I don't think any reasonable person would regard you as independently wealth.

What I don't get is why they need an annual income of $120,000+ when they're empty nesters and retirees in their 70s and 80s, and when they have their own pensions from their (almost exclusively lucrative) past professions, plus Social Security. 

The discussion of how much less $120,000 is than what heads of other churches get, or what they could get in the private sector if they weren't general authorities, is meaningless to me. Travel and accommodations when doing church work is a given, but the large level of pay is mind-boggling to me. 

I believe that they really do hold the keys of the priesthood, but I really don't care for the hyper-corporate culture of many of our church policies and processes. 

[sdc999]

Everyone is stuck on the term independently wealthy.  I think the correct term for those serving if this:  Independently sustainable.  A better question to ask also is the ages of those serving in their respective capacity.  Are they of the age to receive Social Security. There are a lot of humble people that it does not take too much to live on.  Also, at 60+ and I really think 50+, a responsible individual, barring any life catastrophes, should be somewhat in a good financial position.