MormonLeaks Releases Another 8 Documents Today

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

From a PR standpoint (two of my sisters graduated from BYU in public relations; my oldest was the national PRSSA president while at BYU), sometimes you have to bite the bullet, and put things behind you with short-term pain that will fade with time. It's possible that this may have to happen with these leaks, if momentum --- such as JulieM described with other active sisters whose view of the Brethren has changed knowing that they are paid far above a living allowance --- continues to build. And the overly-high interest in the details disclosed by the leaks is precisely because so much effort went into keeping these details secret. So some of these things are unforced errors of our own making.

I'm with bluebell, though. Full disclosure and transparency won't make critics happy, and will provide people who don't mean us any good with things that they can spin in bad ways --- especially things that need complicated context. 

Agreed.  This is why an initial release will require a lot of explanation.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the underlying problem leading to the criticism is a tendency to suffer disquiet without having all the facts on matters that do not change how the Lord blesses us individually.

You're right about that! None of this has any bearing on me personally keeping my covenants. I continue to cheerfully pay my tithing (on gross, too!).  

Having all the facts eradicates faith and other spiritual attributes that are far superior to comparing one with another materially and expecting control or involvement over how sacred funds are used outside of one’s calling and stewardship.

I don't think anyone expects control or involvement over the Church's finances. I don't think it's inappropriate to wonder or ask why it's such a high salary, though. And, I can't even begin to imagine how the Brethren would justify it, if they decided to directly address it. I would find that very interesting, but I don't expect or demand it.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What fuels your suspicions that the Brethren may not be trustworthy?

First, I never claimed they were not trustworthy. But when information is purposely kept from view of others, it raises questions. Just like the example of the husband withholding information from his wife. He may be trustworthy, he may not be. But it's inappropriate to purposely keep his wife in the dark and require her to trust him without any kind of verification.

Omitting information can be just as untrustworthy as sharing incorrect information. Church leaders have done both in the past. Whether it was on purpose, or by accident, church leaders have not always been accurate in the narrative they tell.

Furthermore, there is information that some members would like to know, yet leaders won't tell us. Hence the leaks. Leaders have created the necessity for leaks that inform the church membership how church administration operates because they refuse to share.

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

You're right about that! None of this has any bearing on me personally keeping my covenants. I continue to cheerfully pay my tithing (on gross, too!).

I don't think anyone expects control or involvement over the Church's finances. I don't think it's inappropriate to wonder or ask why it's such a high salary, though. And, I can't even begin to imagine how the Brethren would justify it, if they decided to directly address it. I would find that very interesting, but I don't expect or demand it.

I think these discussions inevitably bring up the issue of members having the right to exercise their consent on how the funds are used, that is why I brought up control and involvement.

But what do you consider to be a good reason to ask why GAs are paid a certain amount, after deciding it is such a high salary/stipend?

Edited January 26, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Furthermore, there is information that some members would like to know, yet leaders won't tell us. Hence the leaks. Leaders have created the necessity for leaks that inform the church membership how church administration operates because they refuse to share.

What is the most important information, from this OP for example, that some members would like to know, and why? At what point do such wants of some members determine what is to be done?

Edited January 26, 2017 by CV75

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's like saying I should keep my expenses a secret from my wife because discussing them might cause contention.

More like not telling the kids you have to spend tons more on one for school fees because they are older or have special needs so that the others might become resentful.

I use kids as an analogy because it is impossible and inappropriate  for the typical member to have enough info to understand the needs of various areas of the Church sufficiently to judge actual need sufficiently to judge whether expenditure is appropriate.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think these discussions inevitably bring up the issue of members having the right to exercise their consent on how the funds are used, that is why I brought up control and involvement.

I don't think anyone ever goes so far as to state in stark terms that they demand consent on how funds are used, although I agree that it is often just below the surface or implied.

But what do you consider to be a good reason to ask why GAs are paid a certain amount, after deciding it is such a high salary/stipend?

I'm not going to ask them!  

Does a person need a good reason to wonder and ask why? 

As I've said before, I don't understand why any salary at all is necessary. I'm being completely honest. I wouldn't need any money from the Church at all on my meager retirement, if my travel and other expenses were covered. I can understand some kind of living allowance, I guess, but $120,000? And every single general authority has more retirement income from their profession than I will have --- before they even are paid the $120,000. Implied in your post I'm responding to is "Who do you think you are to decide how much they should have, and how much is too high?", and this isn't a big issue for me. My testimony and activity in the Church is fully intact either way. 

I look at my parents. They are serving a mission in Poland, and have only social security. They pay almost all of their social security monthly for their mission, and receive no pay whatsoever, and they're just fine. And they'll be just fine when they come home. But every single general authority is more comfortable financially than my parents --- by a long shot --- without the salary. This makes it hard for me to understand why any salary at all is necessary, to say nothing of how high or low it should be. 

On the closed thread, people gave all kinds of speculative reasons for why general authorities should be paid, and why it should be as high as it is. The reasons were ridiculous. Maybe they still have kids at home, maybe they are taking care of multiple families living with them, maybe they are taking care of families not living with them, maybe they are taking care of parents, maybe they need to pay for kids' and grandkids' college or missions, maybe they like to be able to give money to help the poor and need a large amount to be able to do that, maybe they have debts or other expenses from being accustomed to living a wealthy lifestyle (since most people spend what they make), etc. None of these were convincing or even sound very good. 

If the Brethren were to directly address the question, I don't even know how they would begin to do that. I can't think of an explanation or rationale that would sound reasonable --- especially at $120,000. I would be open and all ears to it, but I don't think it would ever be given (and I think it would be worse to talk about it than to do nothing). 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the most important information, from this OP for example, that some members would like to know, and why? At what point do such wants of some members determine what is to be done?

I think it's more than wanting information out of curiosity. I believe members deserve to know how the church is being administrated because it is our church.

There are some pretty standard operating processes for transparency that most organizations accept. It will be impossible to appease every question but there are very basic things that the church does not share.

They can give access to accurate membership numbers

They can give access to basic financials like other non-profits and corporations.

That would be a good start.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the most important information, from this OP for example, that some members would like to know, and why? At what point do such wants of some members determine what is to be done?

When a tipping point is reached, and they feel like they have to answer some questions or address it. I don't think we're anywhere near a tipping point, but you can tell when they happen in politics, religion, or other organizations. It's almost always reactive.

The essays were the result of such a decision that something had to be done to address historical, doctrinal, and policy questions. If it ever reaches that point, it will be addressed.  

[Buckeye]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think anyone ever goes so far as to state in stark terms that they demand consent on how funds are used, although I agree that it is often just below the surface or implied.

 

 

I'm not going to ask them!  

Does a person need a good reason to wonder and ask why? 

As I've said before, I don't understand why any salary at all is necessary. I'm being completely honest. I wouldn't need any money from the Church at all on my meager retirement, if my travel and other expenses were covered. I can understand some kind of living allowance, I guess, but $120,000? And every single general authority has more retirement income from their profession than I will have --- before they even are paid the $120,000. Implied in your post I'm responding to is "Who do you think you are to decide how much they should have, and how much is too high?", and this isn't a big issue for me. My testimony and activity in the Church is fully intact either way. 

I look at my parents. They are serving a mission in Poland, and have only social security. They pay almost all of their social security monthly for their mission, and receive no pay whatsoever, and they're just fine. And they'll be just fine when they come home. But every single general authority is more comfortable financially than my parents --- by a long shot --- without the salary. This makes it hard for me to understand why any salary at all is necessary, to say nothing of how high or low it should be. 

On the closed thread, people gave all kinds of speculative reasons for why general authorities should be paid, and why it should be as high as it is. The reasons were ridiculous. Maybe they still have kids at home, maybe they are taking care of multiple families living with them, maybe they are taking care of families not living with them, maybe they are taking care of parents, maybe they need to pay for kids' and grandkids' college or missions, maybe they like to be able to give money to help the poor and need a large amount to be able to do that, maybe they have debts or other expenses from being accustomed to living a wealthy lifestyle (since most people spend what they make), etc. None of these were convincing or even sound very good. 

If the Brethren were to directly address the question, I don't even know how they would begin to do that. I can't think of an explanation or rationale that would sound reasonable --- especially at $120,000. I would be open and all ears to it, but I don't think it would ever be given (and I think it would be worse to talk about it than to do nothing). 

Really good post. As for the brethren addressing the question, if we presume that the church public affairs does not speak without approval of the brethren (something public affairs has said several time recently), then the brethren have spoke on this issue through them. And the sole justification given by the newsroom is that the stipends are to compensate for lost wages. As I said on the closed thread, that doesn't fly with me (so long as we're calling attorneys to be apostles rather than Guatemalan farmers) but that is the reason.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Really good post. As for the brethren addressing the question, if we presume that the church public affairs does not speak without approval of the brethren (something public affairs has said several time recently), then the brethren have spoke on this issue through them. And the sole justification given by the newsroom is that the stipends are to compensate for lost wages. As I said on the closed thread, that doesn't fly with me (so long as we're calling attorneys to be apostles rather than Guatemalan farmers) but that is the reason.

Can I get a friendly CFR on that? I wasn't aware that public affairs had addressed this, and had said that it was for lost wages. 

Goodness gracious! They're all retired, or near retirement as university presidents and the like. Who needs $120,000 on top of pension and social security? And what lost wages? They're not earning wages anymore. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think anyone ever goes so far as to state in stark terms that they demand consent on how funds are used, although I agree that it is often just below the surface or implied.

I'm not going to ask them!  

Does a person need a good reason to wonder and ask why? 

As I've said before, I don't understand why any salary at all is necessary. I'm being completely honest. I wouldn't need any money from the Church at all on my meager retirement, if my travel and other expenses were covered. I can understand some kind of living allowance, I guess, but $120,000? And every single general authority has more retirement income from their profession than I will have --- before they even are paid the $120,000. Implied in your post I'm responding to is "Who do you think you are to decide how much they should have, and how much is too high?", and this isn't a big issue for me. My testimony and activity in the Church is fully intact either way. 

I look at my parents. They are serving a mission in Poland, and have only social security. They pay almost all of their social security monthly for their mission, and receive no pay whatsoever, and they're just fine. And they'll be just fine when they come home. But every single general authority is more comfortable financially than my parents --- by a long shot --- without the salary. This makes it hard for me to understand why any salary at all is necessary, to say nothing of how high or low it should be. 

On the closed thread, people gave all kinds of speculative reasons for why general authorities should be paid, and why it should be as high as it is. The reasons were ridiculous. Maybe they still have kids at home, maybe they are taking care of multiple families living with them, maybe they are taking care of families not living with them, maybe they are taking care of parents, maybe they need to pay for kids' and grandkids' college or missions, maybe they like to be able to give money to help the poor and need a large amount to be able to do that, maybe they have debts or other expenses from being accustomed to living a wealthy lifestyle (since most people spend what they make), etc. None of these were convincing or even sound very good. 

If the Brethren were to directly address the question, I don't even know how they would begin to do that. I can't think of an explanation or rationale that would sound reasonable --- especially at $120,000. I would be open and all ears to it, but I don't think it would ever be given (and I think it would be worse to talk about it than to do nothing). 

I have seen it stated in stark terms that common consent applies to how funds are used, and in order for the members to do that, fiscal transparency is necessary. That speaks to control and involvement.

(Anyone gonna say that on this thread? LOL)

I think substantive discourse calls for people having good reasons, and when asked, giving good reasons for their questions.

I did not come up with the value judgement (“such a high salary”) out of the blue; that came from you. I wasn’t using it to frame a rhetorical judgment on what you might come up with for a good reason to ask why GAs are paid a certain amount, just keeping my question in the context in which you presented it.

Just as you found speculation to justify salaries on the other thread, it seems there might be as much speculation to question them, such as surmising individuals’ relative financial comfort and surmising how they enjoy their income. Are you implying that supposing that a GA has (“such”) a level of financial comfort over another is a good reason to ask?

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's more than wanting information out of curiosity. I believe members deserve to know how the church is being administrated because it is our church.

There are some pretty standard operating processes for transparency that most organizations accept. It will be impossible to appease every question but there are very basic things that the church does not share.

They can give access to accurate membership numbers

They can give access to basic financials like other non-profits and corporations.

That would be a good start.

It is the Lord’s Church and He has established an order of sustained callings and stewardships, including those dealing with the use of sacred funds. Inasmuch as it is our Church of membership, we have been given a role depending on our calling and stewardship. Faith is required on all fronts, and faith and harmony (as in oneness and unity, not in identicality) are the benefits of defining or limiting what is shared out of callings and stewardships, both materially and factually.

So we sustain those called to steward the sacred funds, and we manage our own callings and stewardships, sharing information within our appropriate boundaries also.

Fiscal transparency is not a spiritual principle and is not laid out in our scriptures (as opposed to faith, for example). Another kind of transparency is, but to have it He requires the saints "strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual." (D&C 67:10).

2 hours ago, rongo said:

When a tipping point is reached, and they feel like they have to answer some questions or address it. I don't think we're anywhere near a tipping point, but you can tell when they happen in politics, religion, or other organizations. It's almost always reactive.

The essays were the result of such a decision that something had to be done to address historical, doctrinal, and policy questions. If it ever reaches that point, it will be addressed.  

Yes, “they” make the determination, and considering the typical timelines, that seems to be a very deliberate process and not reactionary at all. But I think in the deliberations, the reasons for asking the questions are important and of major consideration. For example, time and time again when a GA visits and opens the floor up for questions, he typically reminds the congregation to ask good, inspired questions.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Can I get a friendly CFR on that? I wasn't aware that public affairs had addressed this, and had said that it was for lost wages. 

Goodness gracious! They're all retired, or near retirement as university presidents and the like. Who needs $120,000 on top of pension and social security? And what lost wages? They're not earning wages anymore. 

That was my thinking too. Here's the quote from the church spokesman:  

"General authorities leave their careers when they are called into full-time church service," Hawkins said in a statement. "When they do so, they focus all of their time on serving the church and are given a living allowance. The living allowance is uniform for all general authorities [including First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, First and Second Quorums of the Seventy and Presiding Bishopric]."

No funds for this "living allowance," the spokesman said, "come from the tithing of church members but instead from proceeds of the church's financial investments."

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4800350-155/how-much-do-top-mormon-leaders

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

That was my thinking too. Here's the quote from the church spokesman:  

"General authorities leave their careers when they are called into full-time church service," Hawkins said in a statement. "When they do so, they focus all of their time on serving the church and are given a living allowance. The living allowance is uniform for all general authorities [including First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, First and Second Quorums of the Seventy and Presiding Bishopric]."

No funds for this "living allowance," the spokesman said, "come from the tithing of church members but instead from proceeds of the church's financial investments."

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4800350-155/how-much-do-top-mormon-leaders

Just a question and maybe it has been read or talked about already so forgive me.  Are the debts that they may have before callings paid for?  I think it is for GAs but not sure about Mission Presidents.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

That was my thinking too. Here's the quote from the church spokesman:  

"General authorities leave their careers when they are called into full-time church service," Hawkins said in a statement. "When they do so, they focus all of their time on serving the church and are given a living allowance. The living allowance is uniform for all general authorities [including First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, First and Second Quorums of the Seventy and Presiding Bishopric]."

No funds for this "living allowance," the spokesman said, "come from the tithing of church members but instead from proceeds of the church's financial investments."

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4800350-155/how-much-do-top-mormon-leaders

It makes sense for a number of the First and Second as they appear from what I saw to be less likely of retirement age or close (not saying they need it, though in a few cases I saw I think it likely given their career was CES, which doesn't leave you independently wealthy and they appeared to be in their forties, iirc.)

And all apostles were seventies first, iirc, so when they became GAs, they were likely still in the middle of their prime work years.  By the time they are apostles, most only have a few years left before 65...though I don't know how many of their careers require retirement at that age, so many might still have a number of years left.

It would be interesting to track when each apostle became full time seventy, but I don't have time now.

BTW, while it can be inferred, the quote does not say the living allowance replaces lost wages, imo.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just a question and maybe it has been read or talked about already so forgive me.  Are the debts that they may have before callings paid for?  I think it is for GAs but not sure about Mission Presidents.

There is nothing save an undocumentated claim from Grant Palmer about paying off old debts of GAs/Apostles.

[Jeanne]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is nothing save an undocumentated claim from Grant Palmer about paying off old debts of GAs/Apostles.

Thanks.  I just knew I read it somewhere.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would be interesting to track when each apostle became full time seventy, but I don't have time now.

Yes, that would certainly impact what kind of retirement income each might have had coming from their "working" years (in quotes because they are STILL working). 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I am right there with you as far as the local level being honest and that they strive to follow all the guidelines. But as they send money to church headquarters it's hard to control where that goes. 

In what ways do you think the General Authorities are less trustworthy than local authorities?

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the difference is that, when it comes to the church, people aren't just interested in what is legal, they are almost more interested in what they believe to be moral.  That's why, a company can show that they have a upper level employee earning $90,000 a year and most people would say "wow, that's not very much money considering all that the company brings in and all that employee does" and, besides checking to see if everything was legal, that would pretty much end the conversation.

But with the church that small fact begins multiple debates about the semantics of modest verses immodest stipends, the morality of offering the money in the first place, google earth searches of people's homes and conversations about how much they paid for them, how much they improved upon them, and what they are currently worth.  It brings scrutiny on the tithing practices of the person in question, and extrapolation on what those practices might mean for other people paying tithing, including judgments on whether it's moral for the person to collect the money, how many kids they might be supporting and whether or not they are bringing in more money on the side.  Then we have debates about where the money comes from, how it's not considered tithing including historical business practices of the church being called into dispute.  Etc., etc., etc.

That's what i mean about how it would be really hard for the church to provide any level of financial transparency which would resolve the issues that the normal 'business' levels of transparency bring up.

Indeed. This discussion is a mini version of what would happen.

Contention is a vampire. Sucks your blood and very difficult to kill.

[Five Solas]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

More like not telling the kids you have to spend tons more on one for school fees because they are older or have special needs so that the others might become resentful.

I use kids as an analogy because it is impossible and inappropriate  for the typical member...

Certainly not a flattering analogy for faithful LDS you make, Calm.  They're like children prone to resentment over matters they can't comprehend?  Please understand, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm merely saying this is unexpected, coming from you.

--Erik 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

First, I never claimed they were not trustworthy. But when information is purposely kept from view of others, it raises questions. Just like the example of the husband withholding information from his wife. He may be trustworthy, he may not be. But it's inappropriate to purposely keep his wife in the dark and require her to trust him without any kind of verification.

Omitting information can be just as untrustworthy as sharing incorrect information. Church leaders have done both in the past. Whether it was on purpose, or by accident, church leaders have not always been accurate in the narrative they tell.

Furthermore, there is information that some members would like to know, yet leaders won't tell us. Hence the leaks. Leaders have created the necessity for leaks that inform the church membership how church administration operates because they refuse to share.

So you are of the Reagan persuasion....trust but verify?

If the Church released its financial records, which part would you scrutinize first and why?

The Church made the leaker leaky?

Edited January 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

More like not telling the kids you have to spend tons more on one for school fees because they are older or have special needs so that the others might become resentful.

I use kids as an analogy because it is impossible and inappropriate  for the typical member to have enough info to understand the needs of various areas of the Church sufficiently to judge actual need sufficiently to judge whether expenditure is appropriate.

Even with relatively detailed disclosure, opinions will quickly be formed, camps will be set up,  positions will be taken, and criticism and contention will abound. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Certainly not a flattering analogy for faithful LDS you make, Calm.  They're like children prone to resentment over matters they can't comprehend?  Please understand, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm merely saying this is unexpected, coming from you.

--Erik 

You've been around here long enough to see the diversity of thought and passion among faithful LDS. Add to that the rancor of those who bitterly left the Church and the more rabid of the non-LDS critics, it would become a never-ending battle. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

Can I get a friendly CFR on that? I wasn't aware that public affairs had addressed this, and had said that it was for lost wages. 

Goodness gracious! They're all retired, or near retirement as university presidents and the like. Who needs $120,000 on top of pension and social security? And what lost wages? They're not earning wages anymore. 

Do you have evidence that every General Authority takes his full allotment? Are there any who take, less or none? What extra expenses might they have that a missionary couple wouldn't? Who would know if they pay tithing, how they determine the amount to pay, and should this be revealed to the public? What should be a reasonable compensation for full-time service?

I'm sure there are people that strenuously scrutinize their personal behavior in order to find stuff to embarrass them or the Church. Have they produced evidence that the GAs live luxuriously or spend money on expensive properties and frivolous items? I have known a few leaders and several of their children, and they were not ostentatious in their dress or behavior. I'm talking about several 70s and area authorities, mission and temple presidents, and children of Elders Packer, Oaks, Tuttle, Brewerton, Pres Lee, and JF Smith. 

When a new Apostle is chosen should we require full public financial disclosure and a look at his tax returns so we can decide if he should be sustained or if his stipend be adjusted?

Just wondering how far we want to take this.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui