MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All things being equal, it is more reasonable to assume that one who had consecrated the rest of his life with all his talents and resources to the Church and Kingdom of God would not willingly draw any personal monetary enrichment from the Church's coffers if it were entirely unnecessary for him to do so. That's common sense 101, rongo. Would you do that?

Besides, your or my not being aware of any evidence either way does not mean there is no evidence. There may well be evidence. I simply haven't looked into the matter. Have you?

Is it more reasonable to assume that they would decline the stipend?  It would seem that President Eyring was accepting it back in 2000.  And it seems that Elder Porter was accepting it.  But, while they both have impressive educational backgrounds and career accomplishments, I don't know that either was in a field that would make them extraordinarily wealthy.  I don't really know.  What does a BYU professor with a doctorate from Harvard get paid? (rhetorical)  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just thinking it through.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

$120,000 is not a great deal these days when one is trying to help children get through college. And given what they do and have done in support of the of the Kindgom of God, I do believe our General Authorities are entitled to more than a subsistence-level income. I don't begrudge it for a moment.

120K is a lot but its not obscene.  I am sure they pay taxes on this and they have plenty of expenses.  I think the best reason to pay this rate as it allows those who called to these positions to focus on their callings and not worry about money issues.  If they were paid 60K, they might be like me.  I am usually able to meet my needs but I still worry about my finances for next week or month.  At 120K I would not have that problem as I live a very modest lifestyle and would not have debt issues.

[Ouagadougou]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This website lists percentages for the top wage earners in the USA. When extrapolated to the world, the income becomes even more elite. So the GA's earn a stipend that puts them (not considering their other income sources) in the top 5-10% of earners in America. An annual income of only $34,000 puts you in the top 1% worldwide.

http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/#sthash.NAzxcC3U.dpbs

That's not including all the other benefits/compensation they receive in addition to that $120K.  The leak also talks about "medical" and other "related premiums" as well.  When you add it all up, they (apostles) are probably sitting in the top 5-1% of Americans.  

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is it more reasonable to assume that they would decline the stipend?  It would seem that President Eyring was accepting it back in 2000.  And it seems that Elder Porter was accepting it.  But, while they both have impressive educational backgrounds and career accomplishments, I don't know that either was in a field that would make them extraordinarily wealthy.  I don't really know.  What does a BYU professor with a doctorate from Harvard get paid? (rhetorical)  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just thinking it through.

I think that being independently wealthy -- especially among the General Authorities of the Church -- is not as common as rongo or stemelbow would have us believe.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

That's not including all the other benefits/compensation they receive in addition to that $120K.  The leak also talks about "medical" and other "related premiums" as well.  When you add it all up, they (apostles) are probably sitting in the top 5-1% of Americans.  

My hunch is that if you broke down their compensation to an hourly wage, it would not be nearly so impressive, given that they are serving in their callings pretty much every waking hour.

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My hunch is that if you broke down their compensation to an hourly wage, it would not be nearly so impressive, given that they are serving in their callings pretty much every waking hour.

My hunch is that they should be working for the Lord and charity...not $.  

D&C 84

"86 Therefore, let no man among you, for this commandment is unto all the faithfulwho are called of God in the church unto the ministry, from this hour take purse or scrip, that goeth forth to proclaim this gospel of the kingdom."

 

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My hunch is that if you broke down their compensation to an hourly wage, it would not be nearly so impressive, given that they are serving in their callings pretty much every waking hour.

It's certainly possible, but it's also possible they get tired and rest plenty.  I'm not sure, for instance, Presidency Monson is in the position to work every waking hour, and it may be that he rarely works. 

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that being independently wealthy -- especially among the General Authorities of the Church -- is not as common as rongo or stemelbow would have us believe.

Here is info on their real estate holdings (if accurate):

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2013/11/land-of-lucre-real-estate-holdings-of.html?m=1

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that being independently wealthy -- especially among the General Authorities of the Church -- is not as common as rongo or stemelbow would have us believe.

I've said its likely each of them could get by in relative comfort without the 120 grand given them each year.  In that sense they are independently wealthy.  I say that knowing each of the old retired people in my life.  They seem to get along in relative comfort without an extra 120 grand.  And many of them dedicate much of their time in the service of the kingdom, as they say, too. 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've said its likely each of them could get by in relative comfort without the 120 grand given them each year.  In that sense they are independently wealthy.  I say that knowing each of the old retired people in my life.  They seem to get along in relative comfort without an extra 120 grand.  And many of them dedicate much of their time in the service of the kingdom, as they say, too. 

Never mind. Misread the post.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

My hunch is that they should be working for the Lord and charity...not $.  

D&C 84

"86 Therefore, let no man among you, for this commandment is unto all the faithfulwho are called of God in the church unto the ministry, from this hour take purse or scrip, that goeth forth to proclaim this gospel of the kingdom."

 

 

You are misapplying this scripture. It pertains to missionaries who, in the early days of the Church, were sent out on temporary assignments as missionaries.

 

[cdowis]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's certainly possible, but it's also possible they get tired and rest plenty.  I'm not sure, for instance, Presidency Monson is in the position to work every waking hour, and it may be that he rarely works. 

Prophecy fulfilled.  These are no longer prophets of God, but employees and we judge them on the number hours they work == are they really earning their salary?

[Jeanne]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here is info on their real estate holdings (if accurate):

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2013/11/land-of-lucre-real-estate-holdings-of.html?m=1

Well.,,,this explains the $120,000...You would need to have this just to pay utilities for a couple of months on 3 condos, 2 homes..etc...I feel so much better now.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All things being equal, it is more reasonable to assume that one who had consecrated the rest of his life with all his talents and resources to the Church and Kingdom of God would not willingly draw any personal monetary enrichment from the Church's coffers if it were entirely unnecessary for him to do so. That's common sense 101, rongo. Would you do that?

No, I wouldn't. That's what's bothersome about them being paid $120,000 a year when they don't need it. 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And yet, in rongo's esteem, [$50,000] marks the point of demarcation above which he would consider someone independently wealthy.

Sheesh.

<cuing Ronald Reagan> There you go again, Scott.

I said that there isn't a single GA who made less then $50,000, not that $50,000 is the "point of demarcation above which [one may considered to be] independently wealthy." 

 

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

That's not including all the other benefits/compensation they receive in addition to that $120K.  The leak also talks about "medical" and other "related premiums" as well.  When you add it all up, they (apostles) are probably sitting in the top 5-1% of Americans.  

I am sure they have medical insurance.

What other tax free fringe benefits do you think they receive that are not reported?

[Ouagadougou]

44 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am sure they have medical insurance.

What other tax free fringe benefits do you think they receive that are not reported?

All their transport, food, housing, etc. is probably paid for as well.  Everything is pretty much taken care of for them...and on top of all of that...they receive $120K.  

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are misapplying this scripture. It pertains to missionaries who, in the early days of the Church, were sent out on temporary assignments as missionaries.

 

So, temporary assigned Elders and missionaries are to do it on their own dime, but retired apostles (who are already wealthy), require $120K a year, despite the fact that everything is already paid for?  An apostle today is almost filling a corporate position.  Why does a special representative of Christ require monetary compensation for sharing the gospel and serving an apostle?  Many members in lower positions do tons of work for the church and receive nothing in terms of money.  Also, if they (apostles) are receiving paychecks for their work, then they are doing a lot of work on Sundays...

 

[Calm]

9 hours 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.

 

There were several nonAmerican Seventies that looked like they might be needing the income (lifelong CES employees).

[Calm]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

Canada has some weird tax laws.  When we were up there, it was cheaper for trucks on one side of the country to drive down to the States, drive across the US and the drive up again because of fees the Provinces put on stuff coming from other provinces was more than they would put on the US.  In some ways, it was closer to having a number of small nations rather than one large one.

If the laws are still like this, this might affect how they pay for needs up in Canada.  It may be cheaper to bring them up from the US.  Strength of the Canadian dollar might affect things as well.

Also, the Church Distribution materials would be brought up from the US.  I know when buying from CD when living in Canada, didn't pay shipping costs and iirc, it was sent out from a Canadian holding area, but my boss brought up books and stuff from SLC as he got a 10% discount for doing so and even with custom fees and transportation costs, it was cheaper for him (wholesale dealers got no discount members didn't get save for the save on shipping if you pick it up...and members might be able to get that discount as well if they went to the main warehouse, I don't know.

That would amount to a significant sum just on shipping costs.  It sounds like the US might have to give it as gifts, so subsidizing Canadians...though that would not be donations, but services/materials so maybe not.  We need a Canadian tax lawyer.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. IMO it's more reasonable to think that someone would accept payment that is offered. The church budgets for it and it has been approved by the FP so why should anyone who is offered think there is anything wrong with accepting payment?

 

Because being General Authorities, presumably they are acquainted intimately enough with the work and needs of the Church and kingdom that they wouldn't accept money from its resources if they didn't need it. Or they would donate the full amount back to the Church Which amounts to the same thing.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

No, I wouldn't. That's what's bothersome about them being paid $120,000 a year when they don't need it. 

It's not for you to decide whether they need it.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

<cuing Ronald Reagan> There you go again, Scott.

I said that there isn't a single GA who made less then $50,000, not that $50,000 is the "point of demarcation above which [one may considered to be] independently wealthy." 

 

The context of the conversation was the FairMormon wiki entry that said if there were no stipend, only the independently wealthy could serve.

You objected, saying that's already the case and then asserted that no General Authority in the last 40 years made less than $50,000.

Sure looked to me like you were defining "independently wealthy" as "makes more than $50,000 a year."

Edited January 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

My dad was making way over 50,000 in 1980 (Director over care and feeding of United's planes) and most definitely would have shot through their savings pretty quickly if he quit work even though they lived very frugally (tvs and cars were always handmedowns from grandparents save for one station wagon back in the 60s so we could go to church together...next house in CA we walked to church, clothes always bought on Presidenet day sales, furniture was good quality, but bought once in a lifetime---and I now have lots and have past on others to my kids, food was high quality, but they would take hours to drive to the source for off the boat crab once or twice a year and a freezer bottom full of almonds). SanFrancisco area with five kids on one very nice income was still tight.  Vacations were traveling to Yosemite or flying free to stay free at grandparents.  Only after we were all moved out save the last one, did they start traveling on Dad's free passes on United.  Once retired and inherited his parents' estate (who were even more frugal than my parents), they were able to do fine with the pension and SS even with multiple hospital trips for Dad..thankfully since Mom has some hefty medical bills and likely a number of years left where she will need those savings (Dad always made sure they never spent more than was coming in, save for buying homes).

If my husband quit his little over $100,000 a year we wouldn't survive as insurance pays thousands each month for the three of us, one of my generics is over three hundred, insulin is almost as bad though they are finally making cheap blood sugar test strips.  Have another almost decade for me to get Medicare and our daughter doesn't qualify for two years once she applies because we didn't want to take government money if we could pay for her needs.  We really need to downsize but can't afford to move yet.  Daughter needs her own space to manage her depression so we need two extra bedrooms at this point.  And we can't invite students to come stay because she can't handle strangers.  Hopefully in a few years she will be able to manage a little apt on her own and we can shrink down to a twoish bedroom house instead of a five plus too many extras.  Her needing a larger house is the kind of cost no one would assume if they didn't know our family well.  They would assume it was just the two of us at our age, both quite healthy from appearances, and our house was way oversized (got a good deal on it because they had been trying to sell for years...some nasty little quirks we are slowly taking care of).

I try hard not to judge by appearance these days.  I know a number of people who can't afford to move because their income levels have dropped and their current mortgage is lower even for a house half the size.  They look wealthy, but are not.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Any one of us could "get by" if our income disappeared.

 

Possibly not.  I have heard it may be almost impossible to get my medication through basic Medicare.  I am hoping ''tis not so, but in Canada they refused to prescribe it at all even if paid for out of pocket and I honestly would rather be dead than deal with the side effects the approved drugs cause for me now.  Not sure my daughter could get proper treatment for her complex situation either, which might end in death as well.

It is just not wise to judge others by what we can do.  We just don't see enough of their burdens.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm