MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Calm]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

Are we aware of anyone who doesn't accept the stipend?   Or is this rumor only?

Quite some time ago, I remember comments across the pulpit made by leaders that some didn't accept it, but that was probably over two decades ago if my memory is even accurate and is no evidence about what is happening today.  There is, as far as I am aware, no documentation demonstrating either accepting or not accepting, except in the two cases that were leaked.

I believe there have been more recent announcements about book royalties going to charities, but can't remember specifics...except a hint that something Elder Bednar wrote did that.  That doesn't demonstrate anything about stipends, royalties rarely are significant enough to impact one's lifestyle unless poor to begin with.  Julie Rowe, iirc, was the top seller (unfortunately...because of the subject matter, not individual) in the LDS  market for a year or two and she said she hadn't gotten more than ten thousand, which went to expenses for her tours, iirc.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

And how many missionaries could you support on $120K x 15?  

Depends on where they went.

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

All personal use of vehicles would be considered wages.  Meals without a business purpose would be wages. All personal travel, including commuting would be wages.

Right. There have been things said that gave me the understanding that some may not know or understand this.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Right. There have been things said that gave me the understanding that some may not know or understand this.

And would prefer not to.

[bluebell]

I have a friend who was told (by a stake president) that when an apostle is called they agree to give all their money and assets to the church and then the church gives them what they need to live (a la "law of consecration").

Has anyone heard that before?

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a friend who was told (by a stake president) that when an apostle is called they agree to give all their money and assets to the church and then the church gives them what they need to live (a la "law of consecration").

Has anyone heard that before?

I've heard that, but have nothing to back up if it is true or not. It may just be a rumour.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a friend who was told (by a stake president) that when an apostle is called they agree to give all their money and assets to the church and then the church gives them what they need to live (a la "law of consecration").

Has anyone heard that before?

I find it unlikely to happen.  I don't think they could keep it quiet, not with family members who go apostate.  I can see some making claims the Church was stealing estates...given how much I have seen claiming defrauding through tithing. 

And I think it would be unwise as there are those in the Church today that would take that as a sign they were to donate all their goods to the Church and live off Church welfare or some such thing.  My husband had a missionary companion who forced himself to eat milktoast because he had heard Pres. Kimball ate it.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe Packer couldn't afford a loan on his house and was helped by family or friends.

According the the link up thread both Packer's and Monson's real estate holdings are well in excess of a million dollars each.  Not bad for life long church employees.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, sunstoned said:

According the the link up thread both Packer's and Monson's real estate holdings are well in excess of a million dollars each.  Not bad for life long church employees.

Don't you love compound interest and wise investing?

[sunstoned]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't you love compound interest and wise investing?

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

According the the link up thread both Packer's and Monson's real estate holdings are well in excess of a million dollars each.  Not bad for life long church employees.

Knowing the price tag on some of the houses around here and the reality of the financial struggle and frugality of the longtime owners, I never make assumptions or judgments even a little before I find out how long they have lived in the house and what the community was like when they moved in.  We have a few millionaires in our ward along with a number of low middle class struggling to make ends meet, all in a three block grouping.  Utah doesn't seem to feel there is a problem with mixing the old with the new, the poor with the rich, from what I have seen driving around.  They don't tear down houses just because they don't fit in to the style of the development around them...wish they did in a few cases of trashed, abandoned ones.  

A few here are passing on their parents' house to one of their kids...I love the sense of communal heritage that pops up around here from time to time, I have never lived anywhere like that before, not even in the California house that was a two room 1880s hunting lodge to begin with, in the middle of nowhere and now one can hit the five neighbours' yards that surround it when standing on the front steps and spitting.  Here, on a minimum of a quarter acre of prime land, on paper their houses make them look quite wealthy.  Some even look on the upper crust side due to great, massive gardens from the outside.  Only when you get inside and see nothing has been changed for 30 years or so, is it obviously that any wealth there is (if it is actually there), is the result of hard work and frugality.  A few houses down the street, neighbours' homes look like spreads for House Beautiful.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

True.   I'm certain several of the apostles are supporting their 60 year old children while they struggle through the costs of going to University.

 

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

What's the average age on an apostle today?  They are not putting kids through college at their age...Also, what do they pay for themselves?  Nothing really...

They are not paying for transport and housing and food most likely...

The church already takes care of the vast majority of their needs, so $120k is overkill for somebody who is suppose to follow Christ's exampe [sic] ...

 

 

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

All of that ... All of it ... is pure supposition on your part. You have no idea whom they may be supporting or subsidizing, nor in what manner or to what degree they may be doing so, nor what their own expenses are. 

 

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

True.   I'm certain several of the apostles are supporting their 60 year old children while they struggle through the costs of going to University.

Those who don't have anything substantive to add to discussions usually resort to this kind of sneering, so ... thanks for weighing in, I suppose.  Got substance?  I remind you that the stipend isn't limited to "apostles [who] are supporting their 60 year old children while they struggle through the costs of going to University" (which is only one possible outlay for this allegedly-extravagant stipend), nor are Apostles the only recipients of the stipends.  Apostles may well be paying educational expenses for grandchildren, but members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy may well have children whose educational expenses they may need to defray, 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

Cost of raising children...went looking for info on how much Elder Packer had to put aside for his ten kids, haven't found anything yet, but found this that might be fun for some...notice it only goes up to 6 kids.  Even in the days when Elder Packer was collecting kids, ten was a hefty amount.  Nowadays apparently it is unthinkable for some.

https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/tools/CRC_Calculator/

I love it that it is the USDA that puts this up...raising cattle, raising kids; what's the difference?  

Found this:

https://www.life360.com/blog/cost-of-raising-kids/

"It took an average of $182,857 from birth to age 17 in the ’60s; now it’s $222,360."

So ten would be around $1,800,000 not including missions or college.

[cdowis]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

So ten would be around $1,800,000 not including missions or college.

Only if the parents are really stupid.
Each child has their own individual bedroom, always buy new clothes -- no hand me downs, purchase health individual insurance for each child instead of a family plan, etc etc

These "studies" are designed to support an agenda of having a small family.  Absolute nonsense, phony statistics.

Edited January 14, 2017 by cdowis

[Calm]

The first link I provided  from the USDA appears to take into account the number of children as well as income of parent/parents, so seems unlikely to me to ignore those types of factors.  A flat assertion from you with no documentation to refute it gives me no reason to think your accusation has the least validity to it.

The second link the guy stated he was actually surprised it cost much less than expected.  Over 18 years, spending $10,000 in current value a year on a child is not much of a hardship to middle class imo (which is likely the group he is measuring for, lower incomes spend less and higher ones much more, of course) and even if the price goes down a few thousand because housing and clothing are shared, it gives a decent picture imo.  

Cost can go dramatically up though, if the child has any special needs medically speaking or is being supported in developing a talent (my niece needs to pay tons of money on violin lessons and schooling, but is extremely gifted and easily will become a professional, she will shortly be helping to pay for it by teaching and I suggested she do a Go Fund Me with incentives such as personal concerts and serenades for dinner dates).

Elder Packer's children apparently contributed much to the family's support, so the number provided is only to point out that he had a number of costs most people who had two or three children (the average at the time iirc) didn't have.

"Elder [Allen] Packer is the oldest of ten siblings, and like many other boys raised in the Brigham City area in the 1950s, he grew up bailing hay, milking cows, feeding the pigs, and picking fruit."

https://www.ldsbc.edu/campus-culture-events/devotionals/1047-become-well-educated-in-spiritual-things.html

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

Those who don't have anything substantive to add to discussions usually resort to this kind of sneering, so ... thanks for weighing in, I suppose.  Got substance?  I remind you that the stipend isn't limited to "apostles [who] are supporting their 60 year old children while they struggle through the costs of going to University" (which is only one possible outlay for this allegedly-extravagant stipend), nor are Apostles the only recipients of the stipends.  Apostles may well be paying educational expenses for grandchildren, but members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy may well have children whose educational expenses they may need to defray, 

It's not a "stipend" when the leaks clearly show that the apostles receive a "paycheck" during a "pay period."  That is what most people call a SALARY.  This means that the church does, in fact, have a paid clergy.  Why is it the members' responsibility to pay for the education of apostles' grandchildren?  Lot's of hard-working people have kids or grandkids that have to attend college or pay bills; being an apostle shouldn't give you a VIP pass to receive education for your entire family.  The last time I checked, I thought the apostles were "special witnesses of Christ," not special receipts of church salaries and benefits (which is actually the case, unfortunately).  

$120k is in no way a "modest" amount of money; this amount puts them at least in  the top 10% (or higher) in terms of income in the US.  Now, take a step back and look at how much work the average bishop does on a weekly basis.  Bishops do a lot of difficult work for the church, IMO, and don't receive a penny.  What is the average age of a bishop?  Do bishops and stake presidents also not have families and kids to support?  This assumption that the apostles are somehow struggling financially in order to make ends meet and need to receive $120k a year to survive is both ridiculous and offensive, especially considering extremely poor areas of the world I have visited where people really struggle.  

The next time you get asked to scrub a church toilet -- just remember the church could afford to pay janitors with the money they receive each year -- but they choose to exploit members with lower callings, while paying those in higher callings with high wages.  That is the direct opposite of what Christ taught, IMO.  

 

[sdc999]

20 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.

Who are we kidding?   Get through college?    I don't want to take this into a new direction but the church has always pushed.... have kids right away- don't wait.  Are you telling me these GA's dismissed the admonition of the leaders?    Did they all wait till their 40's to have kids so they are putting them through college while in their 60's.  This statement falls flat on getting kids though college.  These guys are mostly grandparent and great grandparent age by the time they are GA's.  

And again, I don't begrudge them for making money either.  This is a direct result of people becoming aware of something that was taught differently throughout their lives or it would not be news - period.  And again and again and again.  All the main posters on this board (members) have been aware of everything without exception.  They should get up on F&T meeting and instead of regurgitating the "I know this church is true", they should be saying, "I know everything.  If you didn't know it, it's your fault.  It's been out there for everyone forever" 

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

It's not a "stipend" when the leaks clearly show that the apostles receive a "paycheck" during a "pay period."  That is what most people call a SALARY.  This means that the church does, in fact, have a paid clergy.

If you want to quibble over semantics, be my guest.  The hypothetical I'm about to propose misses the point because, of course, I am not providing the funds in either case, but would I rather pay a General Authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints $120K a year, or would I rather pay, e.g., the aptly-named "Reverend" Creflo "Dollar" part of the $60MM he so desperately needs to buy a new plane because ... the $30MM plane simply won't do?  Gee.  That's a toughie!

Quote

Why is it the members' responsibility to pay for the education of apostles' grandchildren?  

It's not.  Money for the whatever-you-call-it does not come from members.

Quote

Lot's of hard-working people have kids or grandkids that have to attend college or pay bills; being an apostle shouldn't give you a VIP pass to receive education for your entire family.

You're missing the point: Who's getting a "VIP pass" to attend college?  The very reason the subject came up is because someone is paying for the young people in question to attend college, possibly a General Authority who is a parent or grandparent.  In any event, if the Church of Jesus Christ wanted to give someone a "free pass," all it would have to do is offer to allow such young people to attend Brigham Young University, tuition-free.

Quote

The last time I checked, I thought the apostles were "special witnesses of Christ," not special receipts of church salaries and benefits (which is actually the case, unfortunately).  

You may believe they're the latter, and you may not believe they're the former.  "As for me and my house ..."

Quote

$120k is in no way a "modest" amount of money; this amount puts them at least in  the top 10% (or higher) in terms of income in the US.

Depends on what someone's expenses are.  All we have in this thread is rampant speculation that General Authorities "don't pay for this" and "don't pay for that," so they can live high on the hog on the $120K.  As for me, I prefer to follow that old adage about what "@$$"-uming does.

Quote

 Now, take a step back and look at how much work the average bishop does on a weekly basis.  Bishops do a lot of difficult work for the church, IMO, and don't receive a penny.  What is the average age of a bishop?  Do bishops and stake presidents also not have families and kids to support?

I'm sure all of the bishops and all of the stake presidents in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appreciate, very much, your strenuous efforts to take umbrage, on their behalf.  (Unlike you, I don't hear any of them complaining, and I have a close relative who's been a bishop and a stake president, and another who's been a bishop's counselor.)

Quote

This assumption that the apostles are somehow struggling financially in order to make ends meet and need to receive $120k a year to survive is both ridiculous and offensive, especially considering extremely poor areas of the world I have visited where people really struggle.

It's ridiculous to someone who wishes to see it as such, and it's offensive to someone who wishes to take offense.  (Somehow, I'm not surprised.)  "As for me and my house ..." 

Quote

The next time you get asked to scrub a church toilet -- just remember the church could afford to pay janitors with the money they receive each year -- but they choose to exploit members with lower callings, while paying those in higher callings with high wages.  That is the direct opposite of what Christ taught, IMO.  

The next time someone asks me to scrub a church toilet, I'll do it, gladly.  (Heck, my toilet right now is dirtier than the dirtiest church toilet I've ever seen.  The last time the church toilet was cleaned was probably 3-4 days previously (at most) when another member did it.  My own toilet?  Well, OK.  Let's not go there! ) In fact, if they ask me to scrub a church toilet and pay an extra $5 each to the Fast Offering Fund, to the Ward Missionary Fund, to the General Missionary Fund, to the Book of Mormon Fund, to the Perpetual Education Fund, and to the Humanitarian Aid Fund, I'll gladly do that!  

Edited January 14, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[sdc999]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

  Apostles may well be paying educational expenses for grandchildren, 

Starting to look like a Monarchy.  Once your family is one of the leaders, they can claim they have to tend to all of the family.  Maybe apostles' kids should bear the financial responsibility of taking care of their own kids.  This should not be on the backs of the LDS members.  

Your statement could replace the word grandchildren with any word.   cousin, niece, 2nd cousin twice removed on sister's side.  That seems more like a choice than an immediate family responsibility.   

[Kenngo1969]

17 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

Starting to look like a Monarchy.  Once your family is one of the leaders, they can claim they have to tend to all of the family.  Maybe apostles' kids should bear the financial responsibility of taking care of their own kids.  This should not be on the backs of the LDS members.  

Your statement could replace the word grandchildren with any word.   cousin, niece, 2nd cousin twice removed on sister's side.  That seems more like a choice than an immediate family responsibility.   [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969 to show which portion of the post he's replying to.]

Depends on the family's circumstances.  I agree with your implicit assertion: the primary responsibility for funding one's education rests with the student, then with his or her parents, and, only then, and only if necessary, with anyone else.  But again, it depends on the family circumstances.

[Kenngo1969]

Ouagadougou,

Congratulations!  In your honor, I just made the $5 donations to each of the funds I mentioned in my previous reply to you!  Now all I have to do is find a church toilet to clean!  

 

[rongo]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  Apostles may well be paying educational expenses for grandchildren, but members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy may well have children whose educational expenses they may need to defray, 

Don't their descendants get free tuition at BYU?

[JulieM]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Depends on where they went.

How much are parents of missionaries (or the missionaries themselves) asked to pay each month to the church for the mission on top of tithing and fast offering?  $10,000 a month would help pay for a lot of them whose families are struggling financially to keep their child on their mission.

Do these leader's kids get to serve missions without paying the monthly amount as well I wonder?

Edited January 14, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How much are parents of missionaries (or the missionaries themselves) asked to pay each month to the church for the mission on top of tithing and fast offering?  $10,000 a month would help pay for a lot of them whose families are struggling financially to keep their child on their mission.

Do these leader's kids get to serve missions without paying the monthly amount as well I wonder?

Last I heard parents of missionaries pay $425 a month.

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, rongo said:

Just a seminary teacher and administrator? No other business interests or investments?

Have you seen his home (I believe it's worth more than $1 million)? Not bad, for a seminary teacher . . . of course, that might not have been possible until after receiving general authority salary. 

You know, my parents bought their home new in Southern California for $12,000 in 1959 - they both worked for Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach: dad was an aircraft assembly inspector, mom was a riveter.  Mom quit to be a homemaker shortly after they bought the house.  Today the thing is worth $500,000+, mainly due to inflation, and to some improvements over the years.  I believe that Elder Packer's situation was similar, and that he already owned the house when he was called as a general authority.  I don't know why you think he bought the house at its present value on his GA salary.