MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Actually, it looks like all that is included in the salary.

"Eyring's biweekly salary broken down into a living allowance ($2,192.31), parsonage or clergy housing, ($826.92) and a child allowance ($76.92)."

Thanks, I'll have to take a closer look at the documents. I've been hesitant to do so, as it feels like an invasion of privacy. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks, I'll have to take a closer look at the documents. I've been hesitant to do so, as it feels like an invasion of privacy. 

I haven't looked at the actual documents. This is information that the news article i linked to earlier provided and attributed to the leaks.

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

Considering their responsibilities and what these heavy hitters have given up in the private market, that seems on the low side. 

You mean heavy hitters like Paul?

1 Corinthians 4:12

12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

[Buckeye]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

Considering their responsibilities and what these heavy hitters have given up in the private market, that seems on the low side. 

I agree. 

However, if we really applied that logic, I know a lot of other heavy hitters - bishops, RS presidents, missionaries, mission presidents (and wives), early morning seminary teachers, etc. - who are giving up quite a lot of pay in the private market and get zilch by way of monetary compensation. So while Apostle's pay may be low, its infinitely higher than most heavy hitters in the church.

[Buckeye]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

While the church does rely on members to do the janitorial duties, no one is forced to volunteer.  I think one of the great things about the church is that so much of it is done without paid clergy. When I talk to people about the church, one of the things I actually like to tell them about is how the bishop, stake president and so many others volunteer their time and serve when asked for no money.  I like how members from the audience give the sermons.  I don't agree with everything the church does, but this issue is not something that I think is a problem.

This is one of my favorite parts of our church culture too. Lots of real unpaid voluntary labor. I just wish the practice was followed all the way up.

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Those who would be apostles should seek to be the most transparent of all. They are after all called to be our examples - a huge responsibility. I too have reservations about the church's current lack of transparency, and I believe it may have something to do with the Church becoming "Mormon, Inc." Transparency tends to keep people honest, which is why capitalism requires it of our public companies, why the church requires minutes, etc.

I find it interesting that the church is required by law to be transparent in Common Wealth nations such as the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ...and those disclosures haven't harmed the church...why they feel the need to be so secretive in America only makes sense if they want to hide something.  Its only a guess but someday a law may be passed that will require the same level of transparency for charities in America as that required in Common Wealth Nations ...so why not be proactive and just open the books now

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

This is one of my favorite parts of our church culture too. Lots of real unpaid voluntary labor. I just wish the practice was followed all the way up.

How would that work?

I don't know any of the voluntary labor of the church where it is required that they quit their jobs to fulfill a calling that only ends when they die or are very old.  How would people in those callings support themselves and their families?  

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

and as none of us pay them, why should we know it?

Who does then? Where does this pay come from? If you are going to say "investments," where did that money come from?

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I find it interesting that the church is required by law to be transparent in Common Wealth nations such as the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ...and those disclosures haven't harmed the church...why they feel the need to be so secretive in America only makes sense if they want to hide something.  Its only a guess but someday a law may be passed that will require the same level of transparency for charities in America as that required in Common Wealth Nations ...so why not be proactive and just open the books now

The argument could be made that since the US is a very litigious society, to make the church's assets a matter of public record would make the church a target for litigation. There may be truth to such a position. I do not wish to make the church a target to those who wish to sue them for every little thing. Just this morning Pres. Monson was subpoenaed to give a deposition as to whether he knew about alleged sex abuse or some such thing which allegedly occurred way back in the 60s. Perhaps it had to do with "treatment" for SSA, I'm not sure, but such litigiousness has the potential to prevent our GAs from being able to carry out their church responsibilities and to drain the hard earned tithing dollars of its members. 

However, if the church were a public corporation and not a "corporate sole" such transparency would be required by law.

Edited January 10, 2017 by RevTestament

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How do we practice common consent without transparency? How is it possible to consent to something of which we are purposely kept unaware?

Faith, which has commensurate spiritual knowledge. Posted 2 hours ago I think we are made aware of anything we are asked our common consent to (not for). Happens every General Conference.

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All things to be done by common consent.  Section 104 makes it clear that the Lord doesn't exclude finances from the "all things" statement.

And neither did I in my explanation(s). The scriptural phrase, "All things shall be done by common consent" is not the same as an expectation that "We give common consent in or for all things." This is made clear in the two simple verses that make up D&C 26: that which the Lord reveals that the Prophet, and by extension, the councils he presides over do, is done by common consent of the saints, for he is to receive all things by faith.

If the problem is you haven't a basis for faith that the Lord guides the leaders in general or in specific decisions, you have every liberty to withhold your consent generally and/or your categorical contributions specifically, whichever works best for you.

Edited January 10, 2017 by CV75

[Buckeye]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How would that work?

I don't know any of the voluntary labor of the church where it is required that they quit their jobs to fulfill a calling that only ends when they die or are very old.  How would people in those callings support themselves and their families?  

Typically such callings come later in life. The person can be supported by savings, by compensated work done by a spouse, or by compensated work done by the person on the side. King Benjamin is the prime example. And plenty of members are asked to do just this. My former stake president left his career early to become an uncompensated area authority seventy. 

And, of course, if apostles were limited to 5 or 10-year terms like other callings, it would be much more manageable. 

[Calm]

Never mind

Edited January 10, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Now the corporation sole means the President is in sole control of all church funds which are then transferred upon death to the new president of the corporation sole.

This is even less reason to expect a shareholder arrangement.

[Gray]

Personally I would supported expanding pay to other church clergy. The unpaid volunteer thing takes its toll on families. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Gray

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- I just find this interesting. Is the ability to touch a temple really some kind of a holy privilege? This line of thinking sounds like idol worship. Yes- I do believe the temple can be an idol. Also, I wonder who they blame for the increasing disrespect; parents or ward leaders not teaching the kids? Groundskeepers or missionaries? I suppose they could put up a gated perimeter so that children don't touch the temple disrespectfully.

I think this is the type of attitude they are concerned about: "We should make it a habit as exmo's to knock on the doors whenever we HAVE to visit temple square and sit outside for weddings."

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Typically such callings come later in life. The person can be supported by savings, by compensated work done by a spouse, or by compensated work done by the person on the side. King Benjamin is the prime example. And plenty of members are asked to do just this. My former stake president left his career early to become an uncompensated area authority seventy. 

And, of course, if apostles were limited to 5 or 10-year terms like other callings, it would be much more manageable. 

I don't know that King Benjamin is all that relevant today (because our societies work differently), but i see your points.   Your stake president was asked to quit his job so he could be stake president?  

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Who does then? Where does this pay come from? If you are going to say "investments," where did that money come from?

The church has stated that none of this money comes from tithing.

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is even less reason to expect a shareholder arrangement.

The church is not an "investment" and therefore is not treated by the law as a corporate fiduciary who needs to show investors what they are doing with the investment money, which the investors expect to receive back. But the President is in a fiduciary relationship with the church through the Lord. Members do not expect to receive back their money, but they do expect it to be used for the Lord, to build up the kingdom. To what extent this requires transparency I guess is up to the church membership under the current state of the law. I believe a few church members have been dishonest and stolen our money, but I don't believe being transparent will stop that. All corporations are somewhat subject to that. I believe the money has not been squandered. I believe the church uses the money at least somewhat responsibly. If the membership wishes to completely trust the GAs about it, it is their prerogative under the current laws of the US. To me though there are a few troubling aspects about it, and I don't believe the GAs do all things according to the law of the Lord. With that, I am going to bow out of this thread, and let others debate the subject...

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is even less reason to expect a shareholder arrangement.

You're right based on how it is set up now but that's not how it was originally organized. Changes happen over time and as those changes have happened common consent has been whittled away to almost nothing where it only applies to sustaining callings.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church has stated that none of this money comes from tithing.

And now we're back to the conversation about fungibility of funds.

Quote

Fungibility

Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. That is, it is the property of essences or goods which are "capable of being substituted in place of one another." For example, since one ounce of pure gold is equivalent to any other ounce of pure gold, gold is fungible.

Whether from tithing or investment funds or substitutable. It's merely a shift in ledgers.

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church has stated that none of this money comes from tithing.

Income from "investments" is indirectly from tithing since tithing money was used to make the investments - unless they are taking the money from fast offerings, church building funds or other funds which I would find much more disturbing.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I agree, but I would rephrase your closing clause: "All in favor, please indicate by the uplifted hand.  Any opposed?"  

I made the change!

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Think of all the professional types in the COB. Like you say there are probably many who are making the same salary as top leadership. My problem isn't with the $$ leadership is making. I actually have more problem with the heavy payroll of church administration from Joe Blow who works in IT, or facility management etc. I think the overall cost of administration is bloated. So much of the $$ the church takes in simply sustains itself by paying employees salaries instead of actually "building the kingdom of God".

Much of what you say may or may not be the case, I don't know enough to know one way or the other, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for most of it.  I don't know that I would dichotomize paying employees salaries versus building the Kingdom of God.  Tithing and other offerings are paid on those salaries, which builds the Kingdom of God.  Families are supported on those salaries, which, in turn, build the Kingdom of God, and so on.  And General Authority stipends are not paid out of Tithing, but, rather, out of income from the various investments of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  So even says the Tribune, which, historically, is no friend of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

Those who provide my income do know that information.

Not to be nit picky but you do not provide their income.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does.  You either choose to contribute to the Church or you choose not to.  If you choose to contribute the money is no longer yours, you have given it away.  A gift for which you receive an income tax deduction.

[Buckeye]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that King Benjamin is all that relevant today (because our societies work differently), but i see your points.   Your stake president was asked to quit his job so he could be stake president?  

My stake president became an area authority 70. At the same time, he retired from a good job. I have no idea if he was asked to retire. Looking at the last several apostles called, each of them had means to support themselves for the rest of their lives that is at least equal to what my former stake president had at the time he retired to become an area authority.