MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Stargazer]

19 hours 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

Wow. That puts me into the top 25% -- or it did before my retirement.  Woo hoo!  And here I thought I had been in the lower middle class all this time.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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. 

Elder Packer owned at least 2 homes.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LM_P5GIvUQA/UoKsgwc3MZI/AAAAAAAAApg/JLdDySiGuvU/s1600/LDS+Apostle+Homes.png

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Elder Packer owned at least 2 homes.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LM_P5GIvUQA/UoKsgwc3MZI/AAAAAAAAApg/JLdDySiGuvU/s1600/LDS+Apostle+Homes.png

So?

My wife's late husband was a bus driver all his life and when he died he owned two houses, free and clear, worth well over a million dollars altogether.  He was frugal and careful with his investments.  My parents owned a single home worth over a half million dollars free and clear by the end of their lives, and neither one received huge salaries. 

So freaking what that someone of modest means was able to accumulate some property over a lifetime?  Why so much resentment?  Why so much apparent jealousy?  Why the apparent insistence that general authorities get the minimum wage?

Judas objected to Jesus being anointed with expensive ointment from a very expensive box -- said it should have been sold to benefit the poor.  We all know where his heart was in the end.  Something about 30 pieces of silver comes to mind.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So?

My wife's late husband was a bus driver all his life and when he died he owned two houses, free and clear, worth well over a million dollars altogether.  He was frugal and careful with his investments.  My parents owned a single home worth over a half million dollars free and clear by the end of their lives, and neither one received huge salaries. 

So freaking what that someone of modest means was able to accumulate some property over a lifetime?  Why so much resentment?  Why so much apparent jealousy?  Why the apparent insistence that general authorities get the minimum wage?

Judas objected to Jesus being anointed with expensive ointment from a very expensive box -- said it should have been sold to benefit the poor.  We all know where his heart was in the end.  Something about 30 pieces of silver comes to mind.

Just giving you all the information.

Why so bitter and defensive?  I see nothing wrong with someone owning more that one home!

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Wow. That puts me into the top 25% -- or it did before my retirement.  Woo hoo!  And here I thought I had been in the lower middle class all this time.

Do you make above 50K a year? According to rongo' s earlier post (he has since retreated from it) that would have made you independently wealthy!

[Stargazer]

44 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Just giving you all the information.

Why so bitter and defensive?  I see nothing wrong with someone owning more that one home!

In context with all the scandalized expressions of self-righteousness from certain posters over those money-grubbing GAs and their unconscionably huge paychecks, your bringing up the fact that Elder Packer owned 2 homes came across as just one more expression along the same line.  I wasn't directing my "bitter defensiveness" at you, though.  I was directing it at the general notion that the laborer is not worthy of his hire:

"17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (1 Tim. 5:17,18)

 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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. 

Have you seen the house we're talking about? It's a mansion. It would have been a mansion (with accompanying grounds) whenever it was bought. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you make above 50K a year? According to rongo' s earlier post (he has since retreated from it) that would have made you independently wealthy!

I'm going to ask that you quote me accurately, Scott. For someone who regularly pontificates with self-righteous indignation and complains about people misusing what you've said, that's the least you could do. 

Again, I simply pointed out that no North American GAs have ever made less than that. I never placed $50,000 in the independently wealthy category (and you know it), and you have now said this multiple times about me. After having already been called on it and backtracking. 

I remember you whining just a few days ago about being "dog-piled" on about your juvenile "countdown clocks." Do you think your manner has anything to do with that?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So freaking what that someone of modest means was able to accumulate some property over a lifetime?  Why so much resentment?  Why so much apparent jealousy?  Why the apparent insistence that general authorities get the minimum wage?

I don't think jealousy over accumulating property over a lifetime is the concern. I think it's more that they continue to draw $120,000+ when they clearly already own property (accumulated previously, of course --- nobody disputes that), are retired, are pensioners or drawing social security, and came from good professions. 

If some of these properties were purchased after they became GAs, using the stipend/modest living expense/salary, that might be more of a concern for some. 

I'm fascinated by the spin that some have felt necessary. Maybe some of them have turned it down, maybe they are paying for descendants' education (even though their descendants get free BYU), maybe some of them are caring for parents (even though they're in their 70s and 80s), maybe they have lots of families living with them, etc. It seems like the people saying things like this recognize in the back of their minds that this is problematic. 

This doesn't affect my testimony (I believe that they hold the priesthood keys and that the keys are real), but I am disappointed. 

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think jealousy over accumulating property over a lifetime is the concern. I think it's more that they continue to draw $120,000+ when they clearly already own property (accumulated previously, of course --- nobody disputes that), are retired, are pensioners or drawing social security, and came from good professions. 

If some of these properties were purchased after they became GAs, using the stipend/modest living expense/salary, that might be more of a concern for some. 

I'm fascinated by the spin that some have felt necessary. Maybe some of them have turned it down, maybe they are paying for descendants' education (even though their descendants get free BYU), maybe some of them are caring for parents (even though they're in their 70s and 80s), maybe they have lots of families living with them, etc. It seems like the people saying things like this recognize in the back of their minds that this is problematic. 

This doesn't affect my testimony (I believe that they hold the priesthood keys and that the keys are real), but I am disappointed. 

President Monson has worked most most of his adult life for the Church. Was he supposed to tell his family "I'm off to serve the Church, so good luck with surviving"?

[Rain]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think jealousy over accumulating property over a lifetime is the concern. I think it's more that they continue to draw $120,000+ when they clearly already own property (accumulated previously, of course --- nobody disputes that), are retired, are pensioners or drawing social security, and came from good professions. 

If some of these properties were purchased after they became GAs, using the stipend/modest living expense/salary, that might be more of a concern for some. 

I'm fascinated by the spin that some have felt necessary. Maybe some of them have turned it down, maybe they are paying for descendants' education (even though their descendants get free BYU), maybe some of them are caring for parents (even though they're in their 70s and 80s), maybe they have lots of families living with them, etc. It seems like the people saying things like this recognize in the back of their minds that this is problematic. 

This doesn't affect my testimony (I believe that they hold the priesthood keys and that the keys are real), but I am disappointed. 

I've made no spin.  I recognize that it could be seen as problematic (even if it isn't) and because of this I have given alternate possible reasons against conculsions made. I make no judgment that it is problematic or isn't problematic because I lack sufficient knowledge to do so. I'm actually surprised that you automatically assume that it is problematic when I know of your testimony of the Lord's plan. 

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

President Monson has worked most most of his adult life for the Church. Was he supposed to tell his family "I'm off to serve the Church, so good luck with surviving"?

Nevermind

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

May I humbly suggest that you are rather naive.  The burden of proof is on you to prove that these numbers are valid, since YOU are the one posting them.  A solid research study will document the factors considered in their study.  Anything not documented in the study itself is subject to questions.  The burden is on the researcher to fully document the study.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm going to ask that you quote me accurately, Scott. For someone who regularly pontificates with self-righteous indignation and complains about people misusing what you've said, that's the least you could do. 

Again, I simply pointed out that no North American GAs have ever made less than that. I never placed $50,000 in the independently wealthy category (and you know it), and you have now said this multiple times about me. After having already been called on it and backtracking. 

I remember you whining just a few days ago about being "dog-piled" on about your juvenile "countdown clocks." Do you think your manner has anything to do with that?

You prefaced your comment by saying something to the effect that it's already the case that only the independently wealthy can serve as General Authorities. This was in the context of my linking to the FairMormon wiki that said if there were no stipend, only the independently wealthy could serve. 

Apparently you didn't understand the meaning of the term "independently wealthy." I'm hoping you grasp it more clearly now. 

Edited to add: Here is a copy-and-paste from your  "independently wealthy" post. The perspicuous meaning is that anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year is indepently wealthy:

"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?"

Edited January 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

7 hours ago, sdc999 said:

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.  

I agree it is unlikely that many of the Apostles have kids in college, at least for very long after they are called.  Bednar more than likely had some, but most are over 60...they might be helping kids pay off student loans or buy homes though.  My dad did that for us when he was 65.  More likely after 5 years in the calling, they are choosing to help grandkids with college or missions.  That can amount to a good deal.  My father in law had probably at least 20 grandkids that had gone on missions by the time he died, at least 40 by now as the girls are going out as much as the boys.  He was also paying for the homes of one child and one grandchild and maybe helping out a lot more than I was aware of.  He contributed $10,000 to the deposit on the first home of everyone.  And he wasn't wealthy.

Sucessful men often have kids who aren't quite as successful.  My dad stepped in to help 4 out of his five kids, three for probably over 20 years, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.  When divorces occurred, he was there to ensure that finances didn't contribute to the stress.  Helped with postgraduate education to upgrade careers.  My parents never stopped giving substantial money to those in need, in and out of the family even in their 80s.

Seventies on the other hand, might be a good idea to check ages.  Many of the Apostles were Seventies before for a number of years, so they could be called then in late 40s and early 50s.

I suspect though that currently for the majority it is less a necessity to ensure out family and friends and more of a choice.  I know if I were in that position, I would see the necessity of traveling meaning I wouldn't be available to be as strong as an emotional presence in my family's life or in my neighborhood and it would be a second best option to be able to feel comfortable about being able to contribute generous funds to my families for birthday and Christmas gifts, graduation presents and mission and college costs for grandkids and for families in my ward.  I took a parttime job just so I could have money I could give away without cutting into our own financial security.  Maybe having money they can contribute to local programs helps them endure the hardships they come in contact with during their global work over the years.  Not having to examine the budget when they get home to find a few dollars they can spare, but being able to write a substantial check whenever they want to might mean a lot to them.

I am not suggesting this must be the way it is, but rather even if the money isn't a necessity for them, we have no way of knowing whether they put it to personal use, let it acccumulate in the bank, or give it away to others who are in true need or just because they want to make someone's day...or something else entirely.

While you may not be offended by the amount, there are a number of people out there who are, so it should hardly be surprising that there are many who feel the need to support the payment.

-----

Knowledge of the wage payment is a separate issue and the two shouldn't be confused by either defenders or critics.  Just because one is being addressed doesn't mean the same argument is being used for the other.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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!  

 

You are a good man, Ken.  V

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

Don't their descendants get free tuition at BYU?

According to what I read yesterday, at least with grandkids there was no guarantee of attendance.  In many colleges, professors' kids get free or half tuition until they are married.  BYU is one of those.  UVU is another.  Spouses go free or for a discount as well.   It is one of the benefits used to encourage professors to sign up.  I am assuming it is the same deal given to GAs.  I would like to see some evidence that it applies to grandkids given the only thing I have read from an apostle about it contradicts it.

[Calm]

6 hours 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.

Depends on the country they live in and their circumstances.  When our kid went, it was $400 per missionary a month for the US and Canada, but who the money comes from is open.  A kid going from our ward a year or two ago paid nothing and was supported by our ward missionary fund.  One of our members (I don't know who, just that they exist because my husband was the clerk) has paid for several young persons to go out who could not have afforded otherwise.  Our bishop ensures that anyone who desires to go can go. I don't know if all bishops are that way, I hope so.  No family should have to struggle to make that payment.  I can see some refusing to let the bishop know they could use help in making the payment.  I have known families like that myself and we have attempted to help where we can (our bishop will just inform them it has been taken care of, they do have the right to refuse though).

I have heard reported by a few older couple missionaries that in some countries missionaries receive stipends they can send home to their families as their families could not survive otherwise.  I don't know if this is true, but I suspect it is.  Missions are important ways to help form future church leaders.  Even for purely practical reasons, it is a good idea for the Church to fund missionaries in countries where they need local leadership...which is in most areas outside the US and Canada, .I understand.

[Calm]

Never mind

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Have you seen the house we're talking about? It's a mansion. It would have been a mansion (with accompanying grounds) whenever it was bought. 

Which house are you talking about?  One of them they bought and added on to as their kids grew, often by their own labor.  A house comfortably fitting 10 kids is likely to be pretty big.  Add to that they had cows, grew hay, etc...it was originally a good stretch of property in a poorer, rural area that is now high end real estate.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think jealousy over accumulating property over a lifetime is the concern. I think it's more that they continue to draw $120,000+ when they clearly already own property (accumulated previously, of course --- nobody disputes that), are retired, are pensioners or drawing social security, and came from good professions. 

Do you think people should have to sell their family home so they can live as unpaid GAs?

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.)

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 ..." 

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!  

The church takes in billions of dollars a year but can't afford to pay for basic janitorial services.  But at the same time, it can pay apostles a combined $1.8 million a year, despite the fact that most of these men are already retired and wealthy.  Keep scrubbing away!  You sound like the quintessential "yes-man."  I, on the other hand, have openly refused to clean the church when I have been asked.  

http://www.businessinsider.com/fancy-mormon-temples-2014-8

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on the country they live in and their circumstances.  When our kid went, it was $400 per missionary a month for the US and Canada, but who the money comes from is open.  A kid going from our ward a year or two ago paid nothing and was supported by our ward missionary fund.  One of our members (I don't know who, just that they exist because my husband was the clerk) has paid for several young persons to go out who could not have afforded otherwise.  Our bishop ensures that anyone who desires to go can go. I don't know if all bishops are that way, I hope so.  No family should have to struggle to make that payment.  I can see some refusing to let the bishop know they could use help in making the payment.  I have known families like that myself and we have attempted to help where we can (our bishop will just inform them it has been taken care of, they do have the right to refuse though).

I have heard reported by a few older couple missionaries that in some countries missionaries receive stipends they can send home to their families as their families could not survive otherwise.  I don't know if this is true, but I suspect it is.  Missions are important ways to help form future church leaders.  Even for purely practical reasons, it is a good idea for the Church to fund missionaries in countries where they need local leadership...which is in most areas outside the US and Canada, .I understand.

My husband was only able to go because the ward paid for him to do so.  He was the only member in his family.

[Calm]

"It seems like the people saying things like this recognize in the back of their minds that this is problematic."

Or we recognize that everyone has different demands placed on them and making any assumption about need simply based on superficial appearances is unwise.  Pointing out that there may be a variety of needs over the lifetime of a GA, perhaps the first few years college kids; later helping them with a first home and taking care of parents; later on helping with grandkids or other families; medical needs of self and spouses that aren't covered by insurance like buying foods that are easier to prepare, clothing that doesn't need to be ironed, hiring someone to help clean the house or stay with one's spouse while out of town; given that in their travels they are probably exposed to a lot of people in need, I wouldn't be surprised if many were involved personally in charity efforts...the list for them of possible financial expenses is as endless as it is in every other person's life.  Recognizing that doesn't mean we think each GA must deal with each need or that they need any help from the Church to do so.

Assuming that every GA doesn't need any assistance seems as poorly thought out to me as assuming they all do.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The church takes in billions of dollars a year but can't afford to pay for basic janitorial services.  But at the same time, it can pay apostles a combined $1.8 million a year, despite the fact that most of these men are already retired and wealthy.  Keep scrubbing away!  You sound like the quintessential "yes-man."  I, on the other hand, have openly refused to clean the church when I have been asked.  

http://www.businessinsider.com/fancy-mormon-temples-2014-8

The member cleaning program has nothing to do with saving money.  The purpose of the program is to allow opportunities for members to grow, serve, and build their testimonies together.  Please see the link below for additional resources and understanding.

https://www.lds.org/callings/meetinghouse-care?lang=eng

Your refusal to help when asked is troubling.  It would seem to condptradict the teachings of the Savior in Matthew 23:11 that "he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."  Is their any task that needed doing that the Savior would consider himself above doing?