MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Calm]

"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."

Do you know this and can document it or are you assuming this is what happens.  And if reimbursement comes out of the $10,000 a month, if there is a substantial air travel, that could add up quickly.

I should ask my brother who pops all over the East for his company how much they fork out in tickets.  I know they have covered family outings to various places worldwide as well as coming back to the States on his frequent flier mileage, I doubt he spends more time in the air than some of the leadership, but he might these days as his job got changed.

****I would be very surprised if traveling for Church business was not covered, but traveling from home to wherever is likely not if I understand Danzo correctly and I have heard reported their wives' travel expenses are not covered (heard it here? Elsewhere?) even though wives are also often speaking and involved in training; if the wife is part of speaking engagements and training much of the time, that could add up to quite a bit...depending on whether the Church runs buying tickets through their office, which makes the most sense to me to get group discounts, or the stipend covers those work travel costs and just wouldn't be taxed since work expense...Danzo, where are you?)

Also when I am talking about you putting my comments into absolutes, I am talking about presenting it as if I think all the examples are happening with all of them no matter what age they are and not presenting it solely as pointing out examples of life varying widely from family to family and we can never know what actual needs are unless we get way too invasive; my examples are simply pointing out possibilities that can happen to people from whatever age Seventies start being called at (40s I would assume since apostles are generally called in 60s and some of them have decades of seventy and mission president service in their history) on, with of course some examples not being even possibly applicable once past a certain age while other possibilities can pop up (most often health, though I have known elderly grandparents taking kids into raise because of death, divorce, or illnesss and given we are talking about 250 families, I wouldn't exclude the possibility).  Most from the summaries of lives I have read appear to be financially in a place they do not need to be supported assuming they have access to US SS and pensions (which a number of Seventies may not have and may not have from their own countries), but I think it is inappropriate to make judgments on the individual leader because I personally know how what appears to be inconsequential to one person can be a catastrophe to another, but without details known we have no way to fairly judge.

And since we don't know if all are receiving stipends, full or part, what they are doing with it if they do, making individual or global judgments of inappropriate use seems inappropriate to me.

A comment like 'the large majority of them do not appear to need any additional income outside of likely their own estates, pensions, and such, let alone $120,000, but appearances can be deceiving so I would need more information before I conclude this is a very unnecessary and unfortunate expense for the Church"...I think that would be fair.  There is, imo, nothing wrong with pointing out how past successes tend to leave people in places where they don't need to work for the money or point out that if we teach this is a good thing for leaders at local levels, it is reasonable to assume it would be a good thing at the top tier levels.  My issue is taking it a few more steps into condemnation when we don't know what expenses are being paid for by the leader and even for all but two, iirc, if they have ever accepted the offered stipend.

Anyone know international tax law and know if it would be cheaper for the Church to pay leaders for expenses such as food, trains, taxis, paying for others traveling with you, etc. than have Church account credit cards to put these expenses on worldwide?  I would imagine it might get convoluted traveling through multiple countries during one trip, keeping track of what needs to be paid where and what can get sales and other tax refunds from countries, etc.

I wonder if my brother knows.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Calm

[Danzo]

6 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?

A few comments

First, What is the Average age of someone receiving a call to be a General Authority? Age 65 would seem to be quite high to me.  I thing late 40s to early 50s would be more likely.  Most likely they would not have developed a big enough nest age to retire on.  Remember as a teacher, you typically have a much more generous retirement plan than most. Many of us still have children at home in the late 40s, early 50s.  Many LDS are still having children in their early 40s.

Second. Although travel arrangements may be covered, All such travel arrangements in the Salt Lake Metropolitan Area would be taxable fringe benefits (assuming the GA Lives in the Salt Lake Metro area).  Thus a Pay  stub (or at least mention on the W2 would be required.

 

Third, in my experience, greater income almost always means greater debt and greater expenses.  I see many peoples income and expenses and I have found that almost universally peoples expenses rise to income.  A person with 100k of Income almost always has 100K (if not more) of cash outlays every year.  Someone going from a 200k income to 100k income will many times end up bankrupt because they have mortgages, car payments, Kids college loan payments, etc that have been maxed out to their 200k income.  It may not be right, but that is  how it often works out.

It takes a highly disciplined person to go from 4k a month to 10k a month and have the after tax difference just go to savings.

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Danzo

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

https://www.hebervalleycamp.org/camp-availability-costs/

Could it be this place? I know, I know, I should ask Rongo. My inlaws had a family reunion there a few years back and it is nice. Not that fancy though, but sort of costly. It did bother me that couple missionaries pay to serve here.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Tacenda

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

****I would be very surprised if traveling for Church business was not covered, but traveling from home to wherever is likely not if I understand Danzo correctly and I have heard reported their wives' travel expenses are not covered (heard it here? Elsewhere?) even though wives are also often speaking and involved in training; if the wife is part of speaking engagements and training much of the time, that could add up to quite a bit...depending on whether the Church runs buying tickets through their office, which makes the most sense to me to get group discounts, or the stipend covers those work travel costs and just wouldn't be taxed since work expense...Danzo, where are you?)

The commuting expense would be taxable. That would include travel to and from the church office building as well as any assignments in the Metro Area where they live.

The wife traveling would depend on whether she was speaking or participating in the event, as well as weather their was any significant amount of pleasure to the trip.

For example, if they liked vacationing in Yellowstone they couldn't have travel covered just because they decided to stop by and speak at a local Sacrament Meeting on Sundays during their 10 day trip. Whether travel is deductible or not can be somewhat of a grey area in tax law and the issue is frequently litigated (the subject has come up in some of the recent litigation I've handled).   

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I guess that's one way to do it.

I just figured for you, it wouldn't really matter.  Wouldn't you support the idea of them having a place to go and relax with their families?

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, cacheman said:

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.

That is disturbing and I can't imagine what apologetic spin can make it ok (especially if Pres. Faust was being paid a salary by the church at that time).

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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

All I know is it was dang hard and took way too much time and risk to move our possessions across borders, even between Canada and the US.  Russia would not allow any gold or silver to leave legally when we left, we had to unpack a massive box to show the cheap flatware we had casually tossed in without thinking because the Russian customs guy thought we might be smuggling the good stuff from the X-rays.  Got a disgusted look from him.  I have heard reports of many other problems in traveling, getting valuables through customs from friends.

I don't know Brazilian law, but the countries I do know, most (all?) have some sort of restriction for loose gold (no one worried about our wedding rings or looked at our teeth)

I don't know specifics, but I think given his reaction of paying them more than market value for their teeth so they could give a greater donation then if they had sold it to someone else as stated in the quote that it was unlikely he was there urging them to pull the gold out of their teeth since he personally lost money on the exchange and he could have just given the Church the money himself if he wanted the Church to have it and the Church would have been better off with both the their money gold and his money, instead of just his money as it amounted to in the end (for what he was able to cover, not all the gold).  Also I got the impression he was using their examples to encourage those who could afford more easily to contribute to help those who could not based on the quote given, which implies to me he rather not have these poor Saints be in such conditions, but he loves and respects them for seeing themselves as giving their all to the Lord.  Talk about living the law of consecration in spirit.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

"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."

Do you know this and can document it or are you assuming this is what happens.  And if reimbursement comes out of the $10,000 a month, if there is a substantial air travel, that could add up quickly.

I'm assuming their travel is covered and arranged by the Church. If they are reimbursed, it would have to be quick (another assumption). It is fast at the local level, especially if one needs it quick.

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.hebervalleycamp.org/camp-availability-costs/

Could it be this place? I know, I know, I should ask Rongo. My inlaws had a family reunion there a few years back and it is nice. Not that fancy though, but sort of costly. It did bother me that couple missionaries pay to serve here.

I don't know where it is. I only know the couple that is involved with scheduling and accommodating the families.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That is disturbing and I can't imagine what apologetic spin can make it ok (especially if Pres. Faust was being paid a salary by the church at that time).

 

Assuming he wasn't there rooting them on, him paying more than market value for the gold seems to me about all he could do and still treat them as adults.  Insisting they take the gold back is insulting imo.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.hebervalleycamp.org/camp-availability-costs/

Could it be this place? I know, I know, I should ask Rongo. My inlaws had a family reunion there a few years back and it is nice. Not that fancy though, but sort of costly. It did bother me that couple missionaries pay to serve here.

May very well be.

Perhaps they close it to others when a General Authority family wants to reserve it? Who knows?

If they did, I can see how that might get corrupted in the re-telling as it being a resort operated exclusively for General Authorities and their families.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

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.

 

Thanks, got confused.  Wonder what custom laws are like between Argentina and Brazil.

I think this is key: "same principle of sacrifice is needed today, where members in one area can reach out to help those in other areas."

Not so sure we are talking "similar sacrifices" as opposed to "sacrifices".

It seems more focused on humanitarian efforts than paying tithing as that would go to the Church and would not necessarily be helping members in other areas.  ButI may be inferring too much.

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That is disturbing and I can't imagine what apologetic spin can make it ok (especially if Pres. Faust was being paid a salary by the church at that time).

 

Such a condescending statement!

Of course you know better than all of those people, they need someone enlightened like you to tell them that they cannot contribute. 

What is truly disturbing is when you take it upon yourself to tell people that their sacrifices are worthless because you know better than they do.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess that's one way to do it.

I just figured for you, it wouldn't really matter.  Wouldn't you support the idea of them having a place to go and relax with their families?

Does it really matter what I think of it if it is being used to feed the notion that a private, exclusive resort for General Authorities is maintained and operated at tithe payer expense?

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Such a condescending statement!

Of course you know better than all of those people, they need someone enlightened like you to tell them that they cannot contribute. 

What is truly disturbing is when you take it upon yourself to tell people that their sacrifices are worthless because you know better than they do.

 

 

Such a condescending statement.

I never said anything even close to what you're stating above.  I'm only being honest as it is disturbing to read (for me, maybe not for you).   

Don't put words in my mouth or claim that I was telling anyone that their sacrifice was "worthless".  Can you quote where I told them that?  

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by JulieM

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does it really matter what I think of it if it is being used to feed the notion that a private, exclusive resort for General Authorities is maintained and operated at tithe payer expense?

You say it as if that would be a negative thing.

I guess I'm thinking... what if it is true?  Does it really matter?  If the Brethren decided that having a place for them to relax with their families, away from the pressures of their calling, was okay to provide, would you disagree?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You say it as if that would be a negative thing.

I guess I'm thinking... what if it is true?  Does it really matter?  If the Brethren decided that having a place for them to relax with their families, away from the pressures of their calling, was okay to provide, would you disagree?

Some might use it as an occasion to find fault. (I wonder why rongo brought it up, if it was not for this purpose.)

So I say again, let's establish first whether the report is reliable before we start to debate the merits of such an arrangement or whether it can be held against the Church and/or the General Authorities. (That's at least twice now that you've asked the question and I've given the same answer each time. Can we let this suffice?)

Edited to add:

In fact, I see nothing of real worth emanating from this thread. I think I'll be disengaging from it.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Btw, I am not comfortable with Saints pulling fillings unless they are replacing them with as good or better fillings.  I hope the Saints got them filled at least, doubt it was as good unless dentristry is much more advanced than I suspect.  However, what would people's reactions be if this was a group of people dedicating the gold to rescue refugees from war torn areas?  Would it still be an eww situation if we knew people were doing this because they wanted to save someone's life?

I think it would be wrong to condemn the Saints for making this personal sacrifice and we should respect and honor their willingness to give to help not themselves, but their fellow saints and their ancestors.

------------

Him using them as examples is a separate issue in my view...

I can understand why people would be bothered by him using it as an examples, hopefully people are okay with him buying them for higher than market value so they could either keep some or feel even better about how they were helping build the temple.  The example use though comes across like he is pushing others to go to extremes like pulling gold from their teeth, etc.  And it may be possible he was, intentionally or unintentionally.  It is also possible that he said it in such a way that he encouraged sacrifices done with wisdom as well as enthusiasm.  I don't know.  So I am not going to jump to conclusions.

I think it is wonderful that Saints who wanted a temple so bad they pulled fillings from their teeth got their temple.  I hope those of us who are better off learn how to sacrifice so that Saints aren't in situations where their best gift is gold teeth no matter who they are giving the gift to and where they can feel they have other options to give all that is required without possibly damaging their health.  This is not something the Church can do on its own, though it can help, sometimes a lot sometimes a little if a government is really screwed up in an area.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Calm

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Such a condescending statement.

I never said anything even close to what you're stating above.  I'm only being honest as it is disturbing to read (for me, maybe not for you).   

Don't put words in my mouth or claim that I was telling anyone that their sacrifice was "worthless".  Can you quote where I told them that?  

 

Tell me, why does it disturb you?  Why would an 'apologist' need to spin it? Why does President Faust's salary make a difference?

Since I obviously mistook your mean, could you clarify exactly what you meant by your statement:

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That is disturbing and I can't imagine what apologetic spin can make it ok (especially if Pres. Faust was being paid a salary by the church at that time).

 

 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some might use it as an occasion to find fault. (I wonder why rongo brought it up, if it was not for this purpose.)

So I say again, let's establish first whether the report is reliable before we start to debate the merits of such an arrangement or whether it can be held against the Church and/or the General Authorities. (That's at least twice now that you've asked the question and I've given the same answer each time. Can we let this suffice?)

Edited to add:

In fact, I see nothing of real worth emanating from this thread. I think I'll be disengaging from it.

You are smart enough to know that we aren't going to find out if the report is reliable.  So I was proactively moving on to the next question.

I find your unwillingness/inability to answer the question to be fascinating.  It's like you're afraid of the question for some reason.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some might use it as an occasion to find fault. (I wonder why rongo brought it up, if it was not for this purpose.)

So I say again, let's establish first whether the report is reliable before we start to debate the merits of such an arrangement. (That's at least twice now that you've asked the question and I've answered the same way each time. Can we let this suffice?)

Amen -- all I'm seeing is a lot of petty gossip; no facts worth commenting on.

It seems that a disproportionate expectation of financial transparency and suspicion fuel each other (hard to say which comes first) can only degenerate, as in the descent from pettiness over Church business decisions into character assassination over presumed financial privileges enjoyed by the general authorities.

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Tell me, why does it disturb you?  Why would an 'apologist' need to spin it? Why does President Faust's salary make a difference?

Since I obviously mistook your mean, could you clarify exactly what you meant by your statement:

 

First of all, I'd never demean those saints in Argentina who were living in such poverty that they'd need to pull the gold out of their teeth in order to contribute to building a temple.  I would never even think of doing what you attributed to me here (calling it "worthless").

It should be obvious why this story could be disturbing.  The church is a wealthy corporation and has building funds.   One of the apostles purchased the gold fillings and then showed these gold fillings to other congregations in the church.

If that doesn't disturb you, ok.  But don't criticize or misquote others if they don't agree with you.

Edited January 16, 2017 by JulieM

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

First of all, I'd never demean those saints in Argentina who were living in such poverty that they'd need to pull the gold out of their teeth in order to contribute to building a temple.  I would never even think of doing what you attributed to me here (calling it "worthless").

It should be obvious why this story could be disturbing.  The church is a wealthy corporation and has building funds.   One of the apostles purchased the gold fillings and then showed these gold fillings to other congregations in the church.

If that doesn't disturb you, ok.  But don't criticize others if they don't agree with you.

You do realize that the temple was built 1975,  when the financing of temples was done very differently that it is right now.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You are smart enough to know that we aren't going to find out if the report is reliable.  So I was proactively moving on to the next question.

I find your unwillingness/inability to answer the question to be fascinating.  It's like you're afraid of the question for some reason.

Believe any fantasy you like. I can't stop you. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

First of all, I'd never demean those saints in Argentina who were living in such poverty that they'd need to pull the gold out of their teeth in order to contribute to building a temple.  I would never even think of doing what you attributed to me here (calling it "worthless").

It should be obvious why this story could be disturbing.  The church is a wealthy corporation and has building funds.   One of the apostles purchased the gold fillings and then showed these gold fillings to other congregations in the church.

If that doesn't disturb you, ok.  But don't criticize or misquote others if they don't agree with you.

I agree with you, Julie.  It's very disturbing... not that the saints of Argentina may have been willing to make such a sacrifice but that our church and its leaders would allow such a thing to occur and then promote it to other countries.  Those fillings had a medical purpose!  It's a horrific story and, if real, would be so embarrassing to Mormons everywhere if widely published.