MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[rockpond]

On 1/14/2017 at 5:49 PM, Duncan said:

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

The spouses of church leaders (at many levels) make significant sacrifices that often can get overlooked.  I watched my mom serve as bishop's wife, stake president's wife, and mission president's wife.  She never complained and always found joy in the service but I know there was some attendant loneliness and manual labor (cooking meals for zone conferences and such).  So, I was glad when they are called to serve as Temple President and Matron because it gave her a chance to take on more of a leadership and spiritual role.

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I'm sorry... the alleged private vacation "playground".  I'm still unclear how, if true, that would put a cloud on the integrity of the Church and its leaders?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

To be fair, to dismiss something out of hand (or an "out of hand dismissal" to use use Rongo's words) means to dismiss it immediately without thinking or discussing it.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To be fair, to dismiss something out of hand (or an "out of hand dismissal" to use use Rongo's words) means to dismiss it immediately without thinking or discussing it.

Which Scott did, IMO.

Here's what he posted:

"So it's the old "I know a guy who knows a guy whose sister's father-in-law's aunt's half-brother's boss says it's a fact."

It's like the game of "telephone^ we played in school. By the time the whispered message gets to the last kid in line, it has gotten so garbled it scarcely bears any resemblance to the original."

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68495-mormonleaks-publishes-docs-on-ga-pay-meetings/?do=findComment&comment=1209689034

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Which Scott did, IMO.

Here's what he posted:

"So it's the old "I know a guy who knows a guy whose sister's father-in-law's aunt's half-brother's boss says it's a fact."

It's like the game of "telephone^ we played in school. By the time the whispered message gets to the last kid in line, it has gotten so garbled it scarcely bears any resemblance to the original."

I haven't read this exchange and it doesn't look like there's any good reason to do so now.  These are the kinds of exchanges that only the people involved in usually care about.  Looking in from the outside, no one comes off looking real great.  That's not a judgment, i've been involved in plenty of such exchanges.

I was just pointing out that there was more to the accusation than just the word 'dismiss'.  

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To be fair, to dismiss something out of hand (or an "out of hand dismissal" to use use Rongo's words) means to dismiss it immediately without thinking or discussing it.

Which seems to be what he did.

[Duncan]

Just now, rockpond said:

The spouses of church leaders (at many levels) make significant sacrifices that often can get overlooked.  I watched my mom serve as bishop's wife, stake president's wife, and mission president's wife.  She never complained and always found joy in the service but I know there was some attendant loneliness and manual labor (cooking meals for zone conferences and such).  So, I was glad when they are called to serve as Temple President and Matron because it gave her a chance to take on more of a leadership and spiritual role.

yeah they do! I always say, when talking about the local Temple and Mission Presidents, I pluralize it because they both serve, it isn't just hubbie. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Which seems to be what he did.

Maybe.  I stopped reading the thread after this exchange got going and have only been checking in periodically to see if it's finished.

[cacheman]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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?

For lots of reasons.  Just to give you one example; if President Faust hadn't had some extra disposable income, he might not have been able to purchase the gold fillings from the members in Argentina.  In that case, he wouldn't have been able to adequately impress upon the Brazilians the need for their sacrifices to build their temple.

"President Faust cited Doctrine and Covenants Section 109, which contains the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, and noted the promises made at the time of the temple dedication.

He emphasized the need for Saints all over the world to begin to sacrifice for temple building. He recalled how, when the Sao Paulo Temple was being built, members in Argentina found ways to donate.

They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple, said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.

This sacrifice has been the hallmark of the success of members in the Latin American nations, he noted, indicating that the same principle of sacrifice is needed today, where members in one area can reach out to help those in other areas."

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/temples/88/Porto-Alegre-Brazil.html 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

On the contrary, based on the definitions you give here, his wording is not correct. To doubt the veracity of something in no way means one has not given it consideration or has treated it as unworthy of consideration. 

Furthermore, it conveys that that the question is still open. To doubt something is not to dismiss the possibility. 

We are constantly being preached to by some here about having tolerance for those who doubt the truth claims of the Church. Why should I be disallowed from expressing doubt about undocumented hearsay?

Edited January 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Which seems to be what he did.

I did not do that. I asked for references, which is tantamount to inviting someone to make a persuasive case. 

I admit I was less than impressed when he could not document the claim. But even then, I did not "dismiss it out of hand."

You seem to allow for no middle ground between uncritically accepting the claim and dismissing it out of hand.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, based on the definitions you give here, his wording is not correct. To doubt the veracity of something in no way means one has not given it consideration or treated it as unworthy of consideration. 

Furthermore, it conveys that that the question is still open. To doubt something is not to dismiss the possibility. 

We are constantly being preached to by some herr about having tolerance for those who doubt the truth claims of the Church. Why should I be disallowed from expressing doubt about undocumented hearsay?

You aren't.  You are welcome to dismiss it ("out of hand") as hearsay.  I just didn't understand why you questioned that description.  I also don't understand why Rongo's story would put a "cloud on the integrity of the Church or its leaders."  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You aren't.  You are welcome to dismiss it ("out of hand") as hearsay.  I just didn't understand why you questioned that description.  I also don't understand why Rongo's story would put a "cloud on the integrity of the Church or its leaders."  

You keep putting words in my mouth. I have not dismissed it out of hand. I have questioned its veracity.

And it puts a cloud on their integrity because he used it to bolster his contention about elitism in how Church leaders are treated with regard to remneration

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You keep putting words in my mouth. I have not dismissed it out of hand. I have questioned its veracity.

And it puts a cloud on their integrity because he used it to bolster his contention about elitism in how Church leaders are treated with regard to remneration

So if such a place did exist, paid for by the Church or its entities, then would that mean the Church leaders are elitist?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So if such a place did exist, paid for by the Church or its entities, then would that mean the Church leaders are elitist?

It's a debatable question. But let's first establish the veracity of the claim before we start debating its significance or the merits of what it is intended to show. 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

For lots of reasons.  Just to give you one example; if President Faust hadn't had some extra disposable income, he might not have been able to purchase the gold fillings from the members in Argentina.  In that case, he wouldn't have been able to adequately impress upon the Brazilians the need for their sacrifices to build their temple.

"President Faust cited Doctrine and Covenants Section 109, which contains the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, and noted the promises made at the time of the temple dedication.

He emphasized the need for Saints all over the world to begin to sacrifice for temple building. He recalled how, when the Sao Paulo Temple was being built, members in Argentina found ways to donate.

They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple, said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.

This sacrifice has been the hallmark of the success of members in the Latin American nations, he noted, indicating that the same principle of sacrifice is needed today, where members in one area can reach out to help those in other areas."

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/temples/88/Porto-Alegre-Brazil.html 

Seriously??  Not sure I like learning new things everyday.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

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!).

You know, sometimes people ask questions just because they are uncontrollably curious and not because they doubt, but because they want to be accurate in their understanding.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You know, sometimes people ask questions just because they are uncontrollably curious and not because they doubt, but because they want to be accurate in their understanding.

I agree and I think that's what you try to do here.  I appreciate that too.

[Calm]

5 hours 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)

I don't think the second one qualifies as it speaks of a lay ministry, which is true, and the abscence of an extensive paid ministry, which is also true imo.

The rest of the quotes are poorly written if they are intended to mean only at the local level or are problematic if there is mentally being made a division between clergy and administrative work, because the vast majority of clergy are both, so we are not different in that way in the top three tiers of leadership.

I think it would be a good idea to be more precise as at the very least it can help us dump ancient antiCatholic and antiProtestant ideas.  Priestcraft exists, but it can happen as easily, imo, in the LDS culture as elsewhere.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

For lots of reasons.  Just to give you one example; if President Faust hadn't had some extra disposable income, he might not have been able to purchase the gold fillings from the members in Argentina.  In that case, he wouldn't have been able to adequately impress upon the Brazilians the need for their sacrifices to build their temple.

"President Faust cited Doctrine and Covenants Section 109, which contains the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, and noted the promises made at the time of the temple dedication.

He emphasized the need for Saints all over the world to begin to sacrifice for temple building. He recalled how, when the Sao Paulo Temple was being built, members in Argentina found ways to donate.

They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple, said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.

This sacrifice has been the hallmark of the success of members in the Latin American nations, he noted, indicating that the same principle of sacrifice is needed today, where members in one area can reach out to help those in other areas."

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/temples/88/Porto-Alegre-Brazil.html 

I missed this post until I just now saw Jeanne's.  

This is really unbelievable!  Is it true?  

 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.)

But hardly surprising given they could at that time gather in one town and its surrounding that was considered quite large since it was close to Chicago's numbers.  That was with 12,000.  Now active membership is closer to the size of current New York.  And just as 1840s Chicago was run on substantially different lines than 2017 NY, the Church needs to run its organization substantially differently in some ways

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I missed this post until I just now saw Jeanne's.  

This is really unbelievable!  Is it true?  

 

 

Do you have a problem with it if the donations were discussed and chosen at the local level and but the time Elder Faust learned about it, all he could do was make sure other such donations would be less likely to occur by paying more for more than they were worth?  What he did with the gold we don't know.  It might not have been allowed to leave the original country (some of it he carries around with him, it appears, but that couldn't be very much...at least not out of the US if it is here now, way too much time and effort and likely cost in declaring it).  

He might have figured out how to stash it somewhere so he could make a killing when the economy collapsed as many gurus taught.  Or he might have then donated it himself to the temple building, but didn't mention that because he didn't want to overshadow the story of the Brazilian saints' devotion.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree and I think that's what you try to do here.  I appreciate that too.

Thank you.  It is sometimes hard to tell where comments are directed and why.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you have a problem with it if the donations were discussed and chosen at the local level and but the time Elder Faust learned about it, all he could do was make sure other such donations would be less likely to occur by paying more for more than they were worth?  What he did with the gold we don't know.  It might not have been allowed to leave the country.  He might have figured out how to stash it somewhere so he could make a killing when the economy collapsed as many gurus taught.  Or he might have then donated it himself to the temple building, but didn't mention that because he didn't want to overshadow the story of the Brazilian saints' devotion.

Do you know if any of what you wrote above is true or what actually happened?

 

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by JulieM

[cacheman]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you have a problem with it if the donations were discussed and chosen at the local level and but the time Elder Faust learned about it, all he could do was make sure other such donations would be less likely to occur by paying more for more than they were worth?  What he did with the gold we don't know.  It might not have been allowed to leave the country.  He might have figured out how to stash it somewhere so he could make a killing when the economy collapsed as many gurus taught.  Or he might have then donated it himself to the temple building, but didn't mention that because he didn't want to overshadow the story of the Brazilian saints' devotion.

Members from Argentina sold their gold dental work to get funds to build their temple.  President Faust used that story to encourage similar sacrifices in Brazil.