MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Calm]

No matter what, if there is no additional confirmation, one person who has no direct tie that can be established does make it unsubstantiated, just as anything Scott or I might claim coming to us in the same way.

My comment way back that Brother Packer could not afford to buy his own home originally and got a friend's help is an unsubstantiated rumor and will likely stay that way because I can't track down the conversation in the forum I thought it took place to see if my source was public knowledge or a personal claim.  I would hope no one treats it as anything but a possibility...hope I made it clear, I try to annotate vague memories as such, but undoubtedly get careless at times.

There is nothing inherently wrong in not being able to unsubstantiate something one believes one knows.  It only becomes a problem if demands to accept it as having significant weight are made.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or they said something without some details or didn't doublecheck to ensure he understood what they were talking about and he made some faulty assumptions, inserted his own ideas on what was happening and then passed it on as if it were stated fact because that is what he sincerely believes.

I see it happening all the time on this board when people are communicating in writing.  I see it constantly offline, two people walk away from the same meeting with completely different understandings about what took place.

Well again, we should let rongo speak for himself (if he wants to post any more on that topic).

Edited January 16, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Wrong.  Each apostle receives $120,000K x 15 = $1,800,000

Iirc, it was the Seventies  who receive this amount, we have no knowledge of the current pay of Apostles.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ewwww....Thank you oh great one 

(And no apologies or regrets for calling you out on your countdown thread.  I have no hard feelings though even if you appear to.)

 

 

This is not about the countdown thread. Your vendetta against me pre-dated that by quite a while. It finally came to a head.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

No matter what, if there is no additional confirmation, one person who has no direct tie that can be established does make it unsubstantiated, just as anything Scott or I might claim coming to us in the same way.

My comment way back that Brother Packer could not afford to buy his own home originally and got a friend's help is an unsubstantiated rumor and will likely stay that way because I can't track down the conversation in the forum I thought it took place to see if my source was public knowledge or a personal claim.  I would hope no one treats it as anything but a possibility...hope I made it clear, I try to annotate vague memories as such, but undoubtedly get careless at times.

There is nothing inherently wrong in not being able to unsubstantiate something one believes one knows.  It only becomes a problem if demands to accept it as having significant weight are made.

No, there's nothing inherently wrong, except for a case like this where the unsubstantiated rumor is being used to put a cloud on the integrity of the Church and its leaders.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well again, we should let rongo speak for himself (if he wants to post any more on that topic).

I have no doubt that Rongo has presented it to the best of his recollection and his friend believed she and her father were sharing good information as well.  What else would he have to say?  

I would think if he had a way to substantiate his claim, he would have done it already.  However, it would be great if he has something new.

I am neither doubting nor supporting of his claim, I see it as a possibility that I am comfortable with, but believe there should be more evidence before accepting it as something besides personal anecdotes that may or may not be accurate.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not about the countdown thread. Your vendetta against me pre-dated that by quite a while. It finally came to a head.

I don't know what you're talking about (maybe you have me confused with someone else possibly?).  I know we disagreed about your countdown for Mike Reid (and I still feel you were unfair and wrong).

Either way, I can disagree with no hard feelings.  And, I sincerely mean that.

[Kenngo1969]

On 1/14/2017 at 3:14 PM, 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

Thank you!  I don't have any problem being labeled a "Yes-Man" when I believe it is the Lord, through his servants, who is doing the asking.  (I think it's probably best to avoid even disappointing the Lord of the Universe, much less ticking Him off. )  And it rarely requires very much scrubbing.  As I said in my previous post, most church toilets have been cleaned, at most, 3-4 days previously, when another member did it.  In fact, I usually volunteer to clean the bathrooms because it's one of the easier jobs assigned.  

Edited January 16, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I have no doubt that Rongo has presented it to the best of his recollection and his friend believed she and her father were sharing good information as well.  What else would he have to say?  

I would think if he had a way to substantiate his claim, he would have done it already.  However, it would be great if he has something new.

I am neither doubting nor supporting of his claim, I see it as a possibility that I am comfortable with, but believe there should be more evidence before accepting it as something besides personal anecdotes that may or may not be accurate.

I agree that rongo has probably told us all he can and that if he could have substantiated it, he would have done so by now. I'm not holding out any expectation that he is going to revisit this.

[rongo]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well again, we should let rongo speak for himself (if he wants to post any more on that topic).

I'm confident and comfortable enough in my reputation here to not worry about Scott Lloyd's predictable and inevitable out-of-hand dismissals of things he doesn't like. As for Scott's reputation and the impression he makes here, they also speak for themselves. 

I don't have anything new I can add by way of "support." So anyone is free to believe and claim I made the whole thing up or completely misunderstood the whole conversation, if it makes them feel better.  

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

We don't even know the amount for one of them.  We know an amount for part of one year for one of the apostles. I forget what we know about the seventy. So not only would it be an assumption that all take it and make that amount, but also that Elder Eyring is still taking that amount. 

Maybe they do all make that much and maybe even more, but we know so very little at this point that I can't understand how so many assumptions are made.

So it's blatant to me that when Pres. Hinckley mentions a "modest stipend", he should have been more clear. But at least he mentions they get a stipend, where else do any of the top leaders mention it? Once again, lack of transparency is coming to haunt. 

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm confident and comfortable enough in my reputation here to not worry about Scott Lloyd's predictable and inevitable out-of-hand dismissals of things he doesn't like. As for Scott's reputation and the impression he makes here, they also speak for themselves. 

I don't have anything new I can add by way of "support." So anyone is free to believe and claim I made the whole thing up or completely misunderstood the whole conversation, if it makes them feel better.  

I believe you. 

[JulieM]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm confident and comfortable enough in my reputation here to not worry about Scott Lloyd's predictable and inevitable out-of-hand dismissals of things he doesn't like. As for Scott's reputation and the impression he makes here, they also speak for themselves. 

I don't have anything new I can add by way of "support." So anyone is free to believe and claim I made the whole thing up or completely misunderstood the whole conversation, if it makes them feel better.  

I guess that you personally know the people you named (you actually gave his name in your post for reference) and that you've talked to them about this ranch/resort isn't good enough 

And yet, these same posters who doubt you, defend having such a location available for the GAs and their families too (just in case it's true )

Well, I believe you've reported accurately what you heard from a direct source (no telephone game going on here as insinuated!).

Edited January 16, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

I am still amazed at those who cannot see the forest for the trees. 

[JulieM]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So it's blatant to me that when Pres. Hinckley mentions a "modest stipend", he should have been more clear. But at least he mentions they get a stipend, where else do any of the top leaders mention it? Once again, lack of transparency is coming to haunt. 

Here are some quotes from church leaders stating that we have no paid clergy or ministry:

President Thomas S. Monson in 2006:

"I explained also that our Church has no paid ministry and indicated that these were two reasons why we were able to build the buildings then under way, including the beautiful temple at Freiberg."https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/our-sacred-priesthood-trust?lang=eng&_r=1

 

President Thomas S. Monson in 2006:

"We are a Church of lay leadership. What a remarkable and wonderful thing that is. It must ever remain so. It must never move in the direction of an extensive paid ministry"(lds.org)

 

 
Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1979:

"In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is no paid ministry, no professional clergy, as is common in other churches." (lds.org)

 

 
Elder Larry Y. Wilson in 2012:

"Because there is no paid ministry, almost every churchgoer has a responsibility." (mormonnewsroom)

 

Ensign Article in 2013:

"Why does the Church have unpaid clergy? From the beginning, the Lord has called His disciples from among ordinary people with diverse backgrounds. They served out of love for the Lord and for others. In the Book of Mormon, for instance, the prophet Alma chose priesthood leaders and “commanded them … [to] labor with their own hands for their support." (lds.org)

 

Mormon Newsroom in 2009:

"Members volunteer their time to serve in various positions in tens of thousands of congregations throughout the world. Their service is critical at the local level because the Church has no full-time paid clergy".. (mormonnewsroom)

 

Elder Derek A. Cuthbert in 1985:

"Over the years of my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have greatly appreciated the opportunities for service, for there is no paid ministry."(lds.org)

 

 
Carlfred B. Broderick in 1979:

"I am persuaded that one of the reasons our Church is designed differently from others, without a paid clergy, is that the Lord knows that only through service can we learn the most important virtues." (lds.org)

 

 
Dale M. Valentine in 2008:

"Learning that the Church has an unpaid ministry or that living oracles guide the members is often surprising to investigators." (lds.org)

Edited January 16, 2017 by JulieM

[Rain]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So it's blatant to me that when Pres. Hinckley mentions a "modest stipend", he should have been more clear. But at least he mentions they get a stipend, where else do any of the top leaders mention it? Once again, lack of transparency is coming to haunt. 

I am not afraid of monsters under my bed (snakes, scorpions and bedbugs yes) so they don't haunt me. The lack of "transparency" doesn't haunt me here either. I would guess it doesn't haunt anyone either, but making the wrong choice without full knowledge of God and the church does haunt some. 

And that's one thing I love about Heavenly Father and our church doctrine. We will never have full knowledge in this life and He knows that. He doesn't condemn us when we don't have enough knowledge to make the correct choice. He judges us when we don't TRY to choose right using the knowledge we do have. 

So as long as I try to learn more of Him and try to live that way then not knowing everything doesn't need to haunt me. Little by little he will give me the knowledge I need and then I can choose to keep doing what I need or make a course correction. Making a choice now doesn't mean that I can't change that later. It just means I can trust that in the end He will have guided me to where I need to be.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Rain

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here are some quotes from church leaders stating that we have no paid clergy or ministry:

President Thomas S. Monson in 2006:

"I explained also that our Church has no paid ministry and indicated that these were two reasons why we were able to build the buildings then under way, including the beautiful temple at Freiberg."https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/our-sacred-priesthood-trust?lang=eng&_r=1

 

President Thomas S. Monson in 2006:

"We are a Church of lay leadership. What a remarkable and wonderful thing that is. It must ever remain so. It must never move in the direction of an extensive paid ministry"(lds.org)

 

 
Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1979:

"In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is no paid ministry, no professional clergy, as is common in other churches." (lds.org)

 

 
Elder Larry Y. Wilson in 2012:

"Because there is no paid ministry, almost every churchgoer has a responsibility." (mormonnewsroom)

 

Ensign Article in 2013:

"Why does the Church have unpaid clergy? From the beginning, the Lord has called His disciples from among ordinary people with diverse backgrounds. They served out of love for the Lord and for others. In the Book of Mormon, for instance, the prophet Alma chose priesthood leaders and “commanded them … [to] labor with their own hands for their support." (lds.org)

 

Mormon Newsroom in 2009:

"Members volunteer their time to serve in various positions in tens of thousands of congregations throughout the world. Their service is critical at the local level because the Church has no full-time paid clergy".. (mormonnewsroom)

 

Elder Derek A. Cuthbert in 1985:

"Over the years of my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have greatly appreciated the opportunities for service, for there is no paid ministry."(lds.org)

 

 
Carlfred B. Broderick in 1979:

"I am persuaded that one of the reasons our Church is designed differently from others, without a paid clergy, is that the Lord knows that only through service can we learn the most important virtues." (lds.org)

 

 
Dale M. Valentine in 2008:

"Learning that the Church has an unpaid ministry or that living oracles guide the members is often surprising to investigators." (lds.org)

And this....

"I answered that the Church is not wealthy but that we follow the ancient biblical principle of tithing, which principle is reemphasized in our modern scripture. I explained also that our Church has no paid ministry and indicated that these were two reasons why we were able to build the buildings then under way, including the beautiful temple at Freiberg."

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

I am not afraid of monsters under my bed (snakes, scorpions and bedbugs yes) so they don't haunt me. The lack of "transparency" doesn't haunt me here either. I would guess it doesn't haunt anyone either, but making the wrong choice without full knowledge of God and the church does haunt some. 

And that's one thing I love about Heavenly Father and our church doctrine. We will never have full knowledge in this life and He knows that. He doesn't condemn us when we don't have enough knowledge to make the correct choice. He judges us when we don't TRY to choose right using the knowledge we do have. 

So as long as I try to learn more of Him and try to live that way then not knowing everything doesn't need to haunt me. Little by little he will give me the knowledge I need and then I can choose to keep doing what I need or make a course correction. Making a choice now doesn't mean that I can't change that later. It just means I can trust that in the end He will have guided me to where I need to be.

There are many definitions of haunt.

a :  to visit often :  frequent <spends a lot of time haunting bookstores>b :  to continually seek the company of <haunting celebrities> <impostors that haunt the official in foreign ports — Van Wyck Brooks>

2a :  to have a disquieting or harmful effect on :  trouble <problems we ignore now will come back to haunt us>b :  to recur constantly and spontaneously to <the tune haunted her>c :  to reappear continually in <a sense of tension that haunts his writing>

3:  to visit or inhabit as a ghost <believed that the house was haunted> <Spirits are supposed to haunt the places where their bodies most resorted … — Charles ****ens>

intransitive verb

1:  to stay around or persist :  linger <a haunting fragrance>

2:  to appear habitually as a ghost <not far from … where she haunted appeared for a short time a much more remarkable spirit — W. B. Yeats>

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said avoiding criticism is a poor reason for the Church to open its books to the public. So we agree on that, apparently.

I went on to say I can't think of a better reason. Which should tell you what I think of all the other reasons.

In other words, I'm pretty contemptuous of the whole notion of demanding the Church open its books to public gaze.

Get it now?

I was already clear on your opinion of returning to the pre-1959 pattern of disclosing church finances in general conference.  Fortunately, I don't hold any contempt of your position and interpretation of scripture.

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, there's nothing inherently wrong, except for a case like this where the unsubstantiated rumor is being used to put a cloud on the integrity of the Church and its leaders.

Are we still talking about the alleged vacation homes?  How would that put a cloud on the integrity of the Church and its leaders?

[Tacenda]

On 1/14/2017 at 9:44 PM, Calm said:

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.

Just thought I'd share this quote...it's interesting how things have evolved from members being very involved with the leaders to what we have now. 

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/01/post-not-modest-stipends-stifling-faith/

After negotiations, they agreed to offer Rigdon and Smith an annual contract of $1,100 apiece, more than three times what the average worker of the day could earn. Ebenezer Robinson, the High Council’s clerk, later wrote that “when it was noised abroad that the Council had taken such a step, the members of the Church, almost to a man, lifted their voices against it. The expression of disapprobation was so strong and emphatic that at the next meeting of the High Council, the resolution voting them a salary was rescinded.” (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, Pg 230.)

Edited January 16, 2017 by Tacenda

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Here are some quotes from church leaders stating that we have no paid clergy or ministry:

I think that these are all specifically referring to at the local level (bishop, stake president, regional representatives at the time/now, area authority seventies). Granted, it is problematic to emphasize "absolutely no paid clergy" so forcefully all these years, when the general authorities have been receiving pay all this time. 

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around is why much of any living allowance is necessary at all. Let's use me as a bottom-end example. I am a school teacher, and my wife doesn't work. I have four children. I am 41. We will be empty nesters in 8 years. Let's pretend, hypothetically, that I'm called to be a member of the 2nd quorum of the Seventy when I'm 65. My combined state retirement pension and social security for just myself (not including my wife), will be between $3000 and $4000 a month. Not a lot, but sufficient for our needs, with room to spare. Needing to relocate to Utah, we could buy a house, but would probably rent. 

As a member of the Seventy, I would have frequent meetings in Salt Lake and stake conferences around the world on most weekends. All travel accommodations are taken care of by the COB. Other expenses incurred in the course of doing church business are covered, either by card or reimbursement. 

At the very lowest-end of hypothetical income (100% of North American general authorities are lawyers, business executives, professors, university presidents, doctors, etc.), my retirement income from my past professional life ($3000-$4000 per month) is much, much smaller than the other general authorities' would be. Most of them probably have investments as well as a pension. On top of retirement income they have from their professional life every month, they receive a sizeable salary (or stipend or living allowance, for the euphemism-inclined) from the Church. Based on President Eyring's paystub (and it was called that, with pay periods), he received $10,000 per month as Church pay back in 2011. As has been said, others' pay might be less than that, but no matter what it is, I have a hard time seeing a need for much of anything at all from the Church. Various possible needs have been proposed (need to pay for descendants' homes, schooling, personal problems; ability to be able to generously help the needy, etc.), but when I have questioned the propriety of Church money being provided for such purposes, some have complained that I am dealing in absolutes (like a Sith Lord  ), even though these are their examples. 

That's the hardest thing for me to grasp. If someone like me could very easily live on his retirement while serving full-time for the Church with no or very little living allowance at all, why are very sizeable living allowances necessary at all?

Edited January 16, 2017 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm confident and comfortable enough in my reputation here to not worry about Scott Lloyd's predictable and inevitable out-of-hand dismissals of things he doesn't like. As for Scott's reputation and the impression he makes here, they also speak for themselves. 

I don't have anything new I can add by way of "support." So anyone is free to believe and claim I made the whole thing up or completely misunderstood the whole conversation, if it makes them feel better.  

"Out of hand dismissal"? What I said is I doubt the veracity of what has been reported. That's not an "out-of-hand dismissal." To dismiss it out of hand would be to utterly deny the claim without consideration and to denounce it as false. I have not done that. There's no way I could competently do that without more definitive information.

Each of us is entitled to evaluate the veracity of claims that emerge here and to decide for ourselves whether they are credible, especially those that come by way of hearsay and lack documentation. As Calm has explained quite well, it is not only possible for facts and accounts, often unintentionally, to get altered with the retelling, but that it happens with some regularity.

By the way, were your sources talking of things that are to be held in confidence? Were they talking "out of school" as it were? If not I can hardly understand the difficulty in getting documentation or other substantiation about the existence of this resort/ranch/park or whatever it is if it is not intended to be kept a secret.

Can you tell us where it is located? Even give the state? If it's somewhere along the Wasatch Front, in the canyons east of the Salt Lake Valley or Utah Valley, for example, it should not be too difficult to narrow down the locale.

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Are we still talking about the alleged vacation homes?  How would that put a cloud on the integrity of the Church and its leaders?

No, this is not about alleged vacation homes. I recommend you catch up on the latest posts.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Out of hand dismissal"? What I said is I doubt the veracity of what has been reported. That's not an "out-of-hand dismissal." To dismiss it out of hand would be to utterly deny the claim without consideration and to denounce it as false. I have not done that. There's no way I could competently do that without more definitive information.

Each of us is entitled to evaluate the veracity of claims that emerge here and to decide for ourselves whether they are credible, especially those that come by way of hearsay and lack documentation. As Calm has explained quite well, it is not only possible for facts and accounts, often unintentionally, to get altered with the retelling, but that it happens with some regularity.

 

To dismiss:  treat as unworthy of serious consideration.

To deny:  state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.

I think Rongo's wording is correct.