Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Calm said: They don't invite anyone else to the park to share it with them or sell spots when it is not in reserved? How big is it? Can more than one family be there at a time? Would he share with you confidential meetings taking place? There's a campground/resort up Provo Canyon called Aspen Grove that's operated by the BYU Alumni Association. There's a waiting list, and it's not cheap to go there. It's for BYU alums and their families, not exclusively for General Authorities. But it seems like the sort of thing that could get garbled into a tale such as the above. Edited January 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: There's a campground/resort up Provo Canyon called Aspen Grove that's operated by the BYU Alumni Association. There's a waiting list, and it's not cheap to go there. It's for BYU alums and their families, not exclusively for General Authorities. But it seems like the sort of thing that could get garbled into a tale such as the above. My husband worked at Aspen Grove one summer. If it is that place, even I have been there, lol.
gopher Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 I've heard that there are some vacation homes for GAs near the Heber Valley campground owned by the Church. Any truth to that rumor? It came from a ex-mo BIL. I just read that Bro Bryce Harper of the Washington Nationals baseball team just got a one year, $13,625,000 deal. His tithing alone will cover most of salaries for the Q12.
Calm Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) It would be sensible to have places to vacation privately with the family close to SLC given busy schedules. Also health reasons, SL air quality is in the pits a lot. I have a couple of relatives who moved up in the valley so they could function. We might get a small cabin for summers up high since heat kills me. Very small, maybe a tent. Edited January 15, 2017 by Calm 1
bluebell Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: Is anyone still thinking this kind of transparency would cut done on criticism overall rather than just changing the target of it? It would definitely only change the target of the criticism.
JulieM Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Calm said: It would be sensible to have places to vacation privately with the family close to SLC given busy schedules. And, who is paying to staff and run this private ranch or resort for the 15 and their families? Do you know? Edited January 15, 2017 by JulieM
rongo Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 31 minutes ago, Calm said: You are reframing my comments as absolutes when they are not. This does not seem like a reasonable way to respond to me. Just because my dad helped me a few times substantially and helped a myriad of others over his lifetime doesn't mean he coddled anyone. And you are putting words in my mouth ("coddled"), which is also not a reasonable way to respond to me. In fact, a lot of his gifts went to people who had proven they were willing to work hard and he only stepped in to help with the last few steps so failure could be turned into success or deprivation into moderate comfort. Those of us who didn't need it are getting to wait for our inheritance assuming Mom doesn't need it. Anything I get is going straight into the house to pay it off and fix a few things to make it easier to sell (crappy shower and no bath in the master bathroom, new rugs instead of the puke pastels through the house, more efficient windows). There is a real joy in being able to be charitable to those we love and those we admire and those we pity. I would hate to think that being GAs took many of those opportunities to give others new chances in their lives away. Not suggesting the Church should turn them into money trees whenever someone asks. I agree that being able to help others brings joy! But, it is not a guaranteed right to be able to do so, and shouldn't be provided for in a modest living allowance, I think.
rongo Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 34 minutes ago, Calm said: They don't invite anyone else to the park to share it with them or sell spots when it is not in reserved? How big is it? Can more than one family be there at a time? Would he share with you confidential meetings taking place? (Just asking to figure out the situation, not criticize) I'm not sure. They didn't share any confidential information with us. And you think they would share specific confidential details with you or their children? No, I don't. Are we talking about just apostles' families or all GAs? The park could be somewhat crowded depending on accommodations with 250ish families seeking to use it. General authorities. They explained that time had to be scheduled on a reservation basis, I imagine for logistics reasons.
rongo Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 27 minutes ago, Calm said: My husband worked at Aspen Grove one summer. If it is that place, even I have been there, lol. It's not Aspen Grove. This is a different resort.
Calm Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 Just now, rongo said: General authorities. They explained that time had to be scheduled on a reservation basis, I imagine for logistics reasons. Yeah, hard to juggle 250 family groups, especially if most want it during July.
rongo Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 19 minutes ago, bluebell said: It would definitely only change the target of the criticism. I don't want Church financials open, for the obvious reasons (critics would scour, parse, and spin, with no end in sight). I do think the years of insisting that no Church leaders are paid, except for a modest living allowance for general authorities, is blowing up on the Church in light of leaked documents. And I think that attempted hypothetical explanations by members seeking to downplay or minimize concern over the leaked information make it worse. 4
Duncan Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, rongo said: If they must, like with relocating. I don't think it's appropriate use of Church money if the purpose is to ensure that they don't have to sell a family home (i.e., so they can have 2+ homes in order to not have to sell the family home). Help from the Church to relocate is different from a lifetime $120,000 per annum. Why would Salt Lake area GAs have to sell their family home at all? If they serve in an Area Presidency, they would or could sell their place. I heard L. Whitney Clayton's wife say they had a good deal going in California and then he was called to serve. They had to move to Argentina, I think and live in an apartment and she didn't know Spanish and he was gone a lot on tours, conferences etc. and she was left with their son at home and felt alone, it's a tough gig 1
Calm Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 2 hours ago, rongo said: Are my wife and I the only people left in the Church who think that it isn't the parent's responsibility to pay for their kids' college or homes? Goodness gracious --- I graduated with no debt, with my wife and I working three jobs, and my kids will do the same. ] I don't think it's the Church's job or role to ensure that GAs can pay for grandchildren's college, missions, or homes. If that actually is one reason for such high salaries. See above. I also don't think being able to help profligate or prodigal children/grandchildren should be factored into a modest living allowance. Or to ensure that finances don't contribute to the stress of children's/grandchildren's lives. It's nice when parents can do that, but I don't think it's something the Church should provide for via GA pay. Wouldn't we all like to be able to do that! Are you seriously suggesting that "being 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" is a compelling reason for GAs to be paid $120,000? I think that might be one of the worst justifications I've heard. That's not a modest living allowance. I think that, if desired, should come out of whatever retirement/investment income they have. You chose to work to be able to do that, but I don't think this money should be fronted to GAs who want to give money away, but can't get a part-time job because of their calling. Sorry. This is getting further into left field. GAs should be spared from "having to examine the budget when they get home to find a few dollars they can spare" [to help people with]?" "Being able to write a substantial check whenever they want to might mean a lot to them" is a good reason they should be paid so much as GAs? Good grief! If anything, shouldn't GAs be able to feel at least a little bit of the pressures and challenges the little guy feels? The modest living allowance should shield them from ever having to navigate opportunity cost? Again, you are turning my comments into absolutes where they are not. Should I return the favor by suggesting you are demanding the GAs live in poverty conditions? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 1 hour ago, gopher said: I've heard that there are some vacation homes for GAs near the Heber Valley campground owned by the Church. Any truth to that rumor? It came from a ex-mo BIL. Well it must be true then.
sunstoned Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 Whatever they get paid, and whatever the church keeps secret is a concern to many, including me. I believe transparency is the best policy. But, I fully believe these (GAs) are good people. I have a friend who works at the COB, and he has told me that he has seen Thomas Monson give away his suit coat to others on several occasions. That is stand up behavior in my book. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) Lost in all of the handwringing about "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" allegedly paying allegedly exorbitant salaries to its leaders in the First Presidency, in the Quorum of the Twelve, and in the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy is the fact that it's not "the Church of Jesus Christ" paying the whatever-it's-called: rather, private concerns (albeit those owned or controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ) and/or their owners are paying the whatever-it's-called. Suppose I'm a business owner and a devout Latter-day Saint. Suppose I already pay an honest tithe and am generous with my resources in contributing Fast Offerings and contributing to Perpetual Education, to the General and Ward Missionary Funds, to Temple Construction and Temple Patron Assistance, to the Book of Mormon fund, and to Humanitarian Aid. Suppose, my generosity notwithstanding, that I still clear several million dollars per year in profit and, feeling extraordinarily blessed, wonder, "What else can I do?" Under the logic employed by several people in this thread (including some devout Latter-day Saints), somehow, I shouldn't feel right about offering to contribute funds to provide whatever-you-want-to-call-them to members of the First Presidency, members of the Twelve, and members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, and/or or the Church of Jesus Christ should simply turn my offer down flat. Just so we're absolutely clear about what's going on here, and who stands where. Other than the more direct involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ in the businesses concerned, there is no functional difference between my scenario and what, insofar as we know, actually happens. Oh, and because of my generosity, also, somehow, I'm exempt from cleaning church toilets. Edited January 15, 2017 by Kenngo1969 2
Calm Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) I think there could be a real problem of appearing to do good charitable works like the above for appearance sake if they shared enough information to fully describe their situations. For example, if they returned all their money to the church or lived without it to begin with, which may actually happen right now, I know of many people who would assume it was a false show of humility and charity solely to look good. If you just happen to see something like your friend did, that is one thing, but if this started to be shared by one and all, then it becomes promotion. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not sharing what individual leaders do and sharing enough of what the Church does to remind the Saints of the need but not to lead them anywhere close to thinking they weren't needed (if they could, I don't know if they are even in the ballpark yet) is in my opinion the best solution. Edited January 15, 2017 by Calm 1
Tacenda Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 I think the church should figure out a way to give the poor a break on paying tithing. Tithing is basically to help keep the church going. And now that it is doing just fine, there is no need to ask the very poor to pay, just as they don't ask people that don't make an income to pay either. Or those that are retired, or am I wrong on that? I read something the other day about this. Maybe just let the very poor give whatever they can for fast offerings so as to make them feel less like a charity case.
Calm Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) One more thing to help the poor feel they are not able to contribute like the wealthy, that they are different, incapable and need to be babied. How is excusing them from tithing not going to make them feel like a charity case? I would prefer to hear from those who are poor themselves what should be expected from them by God. Edited January 15, 2017 by Calm 2
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 4 hours ago, JulieM said: And, who is paying to staff and run these private ranches or resorts for the 15 and their families? Do you know? Danite brute squads shake down indigent Somali peasants to fund this project. It has worked well so far. 1
Calm Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 5 hours ago, JulieM said: And, who is paying to staff and run these private ranches or resorts for the 15 and their families? Do you know? I would be very surprised if this place (has anyone suggested provided any info that there is more than one) were not part of larger concerns that have other aspects that need a presence there unless it was donated by someone for that purpose.
JulieM Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Calm said: I would be very surprised if this place (has anyone suggested provided any info that there is more than one) were not part of larger concerns that have other aspects that need a presence there unless it was donated by someone for that purpose. I've only seen the one referred to here (so I should change my post to singular and I will). I was just wondering if it was church owned or had other owners. I would imagine each family would pay for their own stay just as they would if they traveled elsewhere, but didn't know if you or someone knew more. Thanks for your response! Edited January 15, 2017 by JulieM
JulieM Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Danite brute squads shake down indigent Somali peasants to fund this project. It has worked well so far. Ok
Rain Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: I think the church should figure out a way to give the poor a break on paying tithing. Tithing is basically to help keep the church going. And now that it is doing just fine, there is no need to ask the very poor to pay, just as they don't ask people that don't make an income to pay either. Or those that are retired, or am I wrong on that? I read something the other day about this. Maybe just let the very poor give whatever they can for fast offerings so as to make them feel less like a charity case. I am so, so glad this isn't the case. I have always loved that when we don't get paid (and we have gone through a number of times when we have lived through this) that we don't have to pay tithing - the only bill that went down with our income. Then there were other times when money was so very tight and we paid tithing and things were ok. Some time ago I gave a talk on tithing and wanted to see what blessings I received besides the monetary ones everyone always speaks about. I prayed to know what those were. The answers I received made me feel so blessed and humbled. They were worth much more than the little bit of tithing I paid. So grateful that the Lord didn't tell me that we were too poor to pay. Edited January 15, 2017 by Rain 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 49 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I think the church should figure out a way to give the poor a break on paying tithing. ... 39 minutes ago, Calm said: One more thing to help the poor feel they are not able to contribute like the wealthy, that they are different, incapable and need to be babied. How is excusing them from tithing not going to make them feel like a charity case? I would prefer to hear from those who are poor themselves what should be expected from them by God. This might have some bearing on the subject: https://www.lds.org/bible-videos/videos/jesus-teaches-about-the-widows-mites?lang=eng 2
Recommended Posts