MormonLeaks Releases Another 8 Documents Today

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think it really is in this case. We're all speculating and estimating in this discussion for a reason.  

 

 

Based on what their professions and occupations were, vs. what my parents' were and what mine is (my wife hasn't worked enough to qualify for social security). I'm looking at maybe $3000 per month in retirement from both my small teacher pension and social security. I'm not going out on a limb to assume this. 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. No, retirement is not just about money, but what you are able to do vs. what you would like to do (e.g., travel, etc.) is directly tied to money.

 

 

It just seems to me that the Brethren could very easily be in the same position as all of our senior missionary couples, who likewise receive no compensation but have expenses paid or reimbursed. Well, that's not quite true, because senior couples pay for their own food and things like that, and they pay a lot more per month than the young single missionaries, so they are actually paying to serve (the Brethren are not). But in general, it seems to me that the Brethren, although called for life, don't have any reasonable need to be paid $120,000 per year above and beyond their retirement income. 

I don't like the pressure the church puts on couples to serve missions. I know of a couple, friends of my husband and I, that were sent to England on their mission. My friend said she was excited to proselyte, but they ended up in the basement of a building doing clerical work the entire time. Needless to say she wasn't happy that they were spending so much of their income to serve in that capacity. 

After that mission they continued to be missionaries locally, so her testimony wasn't rocked at all. 

I just think the church shouldn't expect that kind of sacrifice and do work that isn't necessarily or literally teaching the gospel or some other realm of reaching non members. 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/callings/missionary/senior-missionary/senioropportunities.pdf?lang=eng

ETA: And what about the couples that miss so much in their children and grandchildren's lives. They believe they are doing the right thing, as if it will bless their family more if they serve, because they've been told it will. And they serve several missions because of that. I know several like this, and on my husband's side of the family also.

 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/couple-missionaries-a-time-to-serve?lang=eng&_r=1

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/04/senior-missionaries-needed-blessed-and-loved?lang=eng

More indepth look:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/callings/missionary/senior-missionary/senior-missionary-opportunities.pdf?lang=eng

Edited January 27, 2017 by Tacenda

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like the pressure the church puts on couples to serve missions.

I don't think the Church does. Precious few couples go (there is a crying need for them, and comparatively few actually go). If the Church put pressure on couples to serve, I think we would have a lot more serving. 

I think that there are many who would like to, but can't for financial or health reasons (mortgage or other debts).

[Ginger Snaps]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

My thinking is, it could be a good thing because it may be unreasonable to try to release enough information to paint what is released in an accurate light.

It's really common (as in, one of the flaws of our culture) for people to make loud, self-righteous judgments based on a tiny amount of information that often turn out to be completely unreasonable when the full story is known.  A small fact on a piece of paper released by the church would never be able to communicate everything that might be needed to actually understand the fact--such as prayer/revelation, past experiences, trial and error to determine best outcome, domestic and international law, individual personal needs/requests, etc.  

Besides that, I disagree that we are the church.  From my perspective, we are members of God's church, and it's His kingdom, not our's. 

And, I don't see how more transparency will unify the church (as this board proves with threads showing that the leaks have caused contention among some members that didn't exist before), so a quest for unity cannot be used as a valid reason either.

If the church decides to be more transparent then i'm fine with that.  There are some things i would be really interested in knowing.  But I think there could be valid reasons not to be.

Yes. I keep thinking of the parable in D&C 101 where the nobleman instructed his servants to build a tower and for a watchman. The servants begin to build it but immediately start questioning the need for it and the use of the money for it:

 

 47 And while they were yet laying the foundation thereof, they began to say among themselves: And what need hath my lord of this tower?

 48 And consulted for a long time, saying among themselves: What need hath my lord of this tower, seeing this is a time of peace?

 49 Might not this money be given to the exchangers? For there is no need of these things.

 50 And while they were at variance one with another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord.

At which point the enemy comes in and causes a large amount of trouble for them and the nobleman comes back and says (paraphrasing here), "You guys had ONE job". 

I think the financial arguments are a distraction. Either you sustain the leaders of the church and trust that they are carrying out the will of the Lord with HIS money (because it's all his) or you don't (general you, not directed at anyone specific). If you  don't, then you are fully free to quit paying tithing. We aren't shareholders in a large organization. We are commanded to pay tithing. The Lord has promised that His church won't be led astray; if you believe that promise and you sustain the leaders of the church, then you have to trust that the money is being used in conjunction with the will of the Lord. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have no idea. I have never discussed this with them, and it isn't going to be a discussion point in my weekly letters to them on their mission.

I suspect that they have no idea that they are paid, and that if they think that they are paid a "modest living allowance," they would be stunned to learn that it is actually $120,000.

My dad does all of the mission finances, so he would know about mission president pay. In their case, their president is a 37 year-old who moved from Germany, and has three small children, so compensating him for not being able to work for three years makes perfect sense. 

I would be shocked if Mission President compensation was paid out of mission expenses. I'm guessing that comes directly from HQ accounting with as few eyes seeing it as possible.

[bluebell]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I would be shocked if Mission President compensation was paid out of mission expenses. I'm guessing that comes directly from HQ accounting with as few eyes seeing it as possible.

Did the Newsroom say that MPs were paid out of the same fund (as in, not tithing but from the business arm of the church) as the other stipends?  I can't remember.

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think the Church does. Precious few couples go (there is a crying need for them, and comparatively few actually go). If the Church put pressure on couples to serve, I think we would have a lot more serving. 

I think that there are many who would like to, but can't for financial or health reasons (mortgage or other debts).

Why are there service opportunities that help the church's finances such as the Polynesian Culture Center in Hawaii or recreational properties, or the ranch in Florida, and in the church's real estate department? It just seems wrong, those couples should be exempt. We should have more humanitarian mission opportunities, granted we have them, but need more. And it would be nice if all members were afforded those opportunities.

And the church shouldn't have members pay for missions that are part of the church's for-profit entities.

Maybe the GA's could take a cut in pay and help alleviate the costs. I'm sure 5,000 less per month wouldn't hurt, since they are getting double that before taxes and tithing.  

Edited January 27, 2017 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like the pressure the church puts on couples to serve missions. I know of a couple, friends of my husband and I, that were sent to England on their mission. My friend said she was excited to proselyte, but they ended up in the basement of a building doing clerical work the entire time. Needless to say she wasn't happy that they were spending so much of their income to serve in that capacity. 

After that mission they continued to be missionaries locally, so her testimony wasn't rocked at all. 

I just think the church shouldn't expect that kind of sacrifice and do work that isn't necessarily or literally teaching the gospel or some other realm of reaching non members. 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/callings/missionary/senior-missionary/senioropportunities.pdf?lang=eng

ETA: And what about the couples that miss so much in their children and grandchildren's lives. They believe they are doing the right thing, as if it will bless their family more if they serve, because they've been told it will. And they serve several missions because of that. I know several like this, and in my husband's side of the family also.

 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/couple-missionaries-a-time-to-serve?lang=eng&_r=1

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/04/senior-missionaries-needed-blessed-and-loved?lang=eng

I'm with you on this point... it is frustrating for me to see the title of "missionary" slapped on jobs that are not proselyting or ministerial or pastoral.  We clearly have the money so we ought to pay members to do things that are really "jobs".

My parents mission resulted in them missing births, baptisms, priesthood ordinations and being able to see a parent on their death bed.  But they were fine with those sacrifices because they knew they were doing the Lord's work.  I'm not sure they would have felt the same had they been doing a clerical job that could have been done by someone not called as a missionary.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did the Newsroom say that MPs were paid out of the same fund (as in, not tithing but from the business arm of the church) as the other stipends?  I can't remember.

Mission Presidents weren't mentioned in that article so I don't know if their benefits are paid from tithing funds or not.

 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think the Church does. Precious few couples go (there is a crying need for them, and comparatively few actually go). If the Church put pressure on couples to serve, I think we would have a lot more serving. 

I think that there are many who would like to, but can't for financial or health reasons (mortgage or other debts).

When I was a counselor in our bishopric, we were regularly asked to send names of potential missionary couples to the stake president.  Does that not happen in your stake?

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, it depends on what is actually meant by "living allowance." I don't think they are being dishonest; it's just the details that were hitherto unknown that are jarring.

1) "Apartment" or "house" is likewise less creepy than "compound."

I think it's interesting to analyze the choice of words being used by people in this discussion, and why they chose them. 

2) Where the Brethren live? They all live in their houses, don't they? I don't think we have any anymore living in the Hotel Utah.

3) I've heard this several times as well. They need higher living accommodations because they are entertaining dignitaries in their homes? What's wrong with entertaining dignitaries in "modest" homes (if they even do that at home)? And wouldn't a "modest" living allowance correlate with "modest" living arrangement?

4) There are some mansions, but for the most part, I think most GA homes are "normal." The thing is, they already own them. Why would they need a high salary to finance and maintain them?

5) I still don't understand the term "living allowance." If all expenses are paid for, and they have retirement, why an allowance at all?

Each of these words carry connotations, and there are reasons why some people choose one and others choose others. I think people should think about why people choose and exclude the ones that they do.

"living allowance"

"stipend"

"salary"

I think “jarring” is in the “jar” of the “jarred…” and sometimes that’s pronounced jihad… LOL

1) I was trying to say that a living allowance arrangement is less creepy than a compound arrangement. Both terms have broader applications/implications than an apartment or house.

2-3) I think the scope and kinds of interaction they are expected to have extends far beyond their domicile and neighborhood. A lot goes into that. MORE than mine, that’s for sure.

4) I can’t say whether the salary is high, all things considered. As a hand, I cannot rightly say to the teeth, “I do not want to brush you as much as the dentist advised.”

5) They use it to live, which is rightly a very broad term.

I just use whatever term is in the prevailing conversation at the moment. A few pages ago stipend was the mot du jour.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When I was a counselor in our bishopric, we were regularly asked to send names of potential missionary couples to the stake president.  Does that not happen in your stake?

I remember senior couples in my ward and previous wards, being asked to go on missions.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Well, it depends on what is actually meant by "living allowance." I don't think they are being dishonest; it's just the details that were hitherto unknown that are jarring.

1) "Apartment" or "house" is likewise less creepy than "compound."

I think it's interesting to analyze the choice of words being used by people in this discussion, and why they chose them. 

2) Where the Brethren live? They all live in their houses, don't they? I don't think we have any anymore living in the Hotel Utah.

3) I've heard this several times as well. They need higher living accommodations because they are entertaining dignitaries in their homes? What's wrong with entertaining dignitaries in "modest" homes (if they even do that at home)? And wouldn't a "modest" living allowance correlate with "modest" living arrangement?

4) There are some mansions, but for the most part, I think most GA homes are "normal." The thing is, they already own them. Why would they need a high salary to finance and maintain them?

5) I still don't understand the term "living allowance." If all expenses are paid for, and they have retirement, why an allowance at all?

Each of these words carry connotations, and there are reasons why some people choose one and others choose others. I think people should think about why people choose and exclude the ones that they do.

"living allowance"

"stipend"

"salary"

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't think it really is in this case. We're all speculating and estimating in this discussion for a reason.

Based on what their professions and occupations were, vs. what my parents' were and what mine is (my wife hasn't worked enough to qualify for social security). I'm looking at maybe $3000 per month in retirement from both my small teacher pension and social security. I'm not going out on a limb to assume this.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. No, retirement is not just about money, but what you are able to do vs. what you would like to do (e.g., travel, etc.) is directly tied to money.

It just seems to me that the Brethren could very easily be in the same position as all of our senior missionary couples, who likewise receive no compensation but have expenses paid or reimbursed. Well, that's not quite true, because senior couples pay for their own food and things like that, and they pay a lot more per month than the young single missionaries, so they are actually paying to serve (the Brethren are not). But in general, it seems to me that the Brethren, although called for life, don't have any reasonable need to be paid $120,000 per year above and beyond their retirement income. 

As you noted in the various other terms you listed above, and others used elsewhere in this thread, living allowance refers to money given to the GAs to carry on their lives with.

We all know there can be a tendency to equate money with comfort, but we also know it just doesn’t work that way. The role of money is a very relative and subjective thing, and what we would like to do with it is considered in Jacob 2:18-19.

The love of money is a problem for any who possess it (the love, not the money!), and I think it colors our spiritual attitude toward material things

I think many aspects of the lives of the Brethren are not quite the same as those full-time missionaries, so I think the comparison is apples and oranges.

The purpose of allotments is simply to pay people; the discussion seems to be whether others are owed a judgement seat as to whether the amount is earned or even merited. But all things are the Lord’s and everything we have is allotted to us by His grace (Alma 29:3), and none of us merits anything.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I have no idea. I have never discussed this with them, and it isn't going to be a discussion point in my weekly letters to them on their mission.

I suspect that they have no idea that they are paid, and that if they think that they are paid a "modest living allowance," they would be stunned to learn that it is actually $120,000.

My dad does all of the mission finances, so he would know about mission president pay. In their case, their president is a 37 year-old who moved from Germany, and has three small children, so compensating him for not being able to work for three years makes perfect sense. 

Their blog is very nice; thank you for posting it. From it I can tell they agree with me 100%

Edited January 27, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would be shocked if Mission President compensation was paid out of mission expenses. I'm guessing that comes directly from HQ accounting with as few eyes seeing it as possible.

"shocked" -- that like "jarred"?

[CA Steve]

It's interesting how some are trying to turn this into a thread about whether nor not people "trust" leadership.

 

I trust that the leadership is not perfect.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Did the Newsroom say that MPs were paid out of the same fund (as in, not tithing but from the business arm of the church) as the other stipends?  I can't remember.

Whether or not something comes out of tithing is one of my biggest "Who cares, and why does it matter" questions. And I can't stand it when people bring up the word "fungible" . . .  

I honestly don't see the difference between MPs being paid from tithing, or "not tithing, just business arm earnings." It's the same thing, in my book. 

[rongo]

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When I was a counselor in our bishopric, we were regularly asked to send names of potential missionary couples to the stake president.  Does that not happen in your stake?

It wasn't an emphasis under old stake president. Maybe this is a thing that completely reflects local emphases.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

It wasn't an emphasis under old stake president. Maybe this is a thing that completely reflects local emphases.

Yeah... that's why I asked.  I think it could be dependent on what local leaders emphasize -- like a lot of things in the church.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't think the Church does. Precious few couples go (there is a crying need for them, and comparatively few actually go). If the Church put pressure on couples to serve, I think we would have a lot more serving. 

I think that there are many who would like to, but can't for financial or health reasons (mortgage or other debts).

This is the position my parents are in.  They would have to borrow against their retirement to be able to go (they were told to plan on over $2,000 a month to pay their mission).

Funny that the Polynesian Cultural Center has been mentioned (and some of their financials are part of the leaks).  My Dad is a painter and that was one of the service missions they were told about (a full time painter to paint and repair and keep up buildings at the PCC.)  So they would work full time and pay for their mission too!

They still want to go sometime if they can, but just can't afford it. 

Here is information on costs for couples and also info on the different service missions:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/callings/missionary/senior-missionary/senior-missionary-opportunities.pdf

Edited January 27, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This is the position my parents are in.  They would have to borrow against their retirement to be able to go (they were told to plan on over $2,000 a month to pay their mission).

Funny that the Polynesian Cultural Center has been mentioned (and some of their financials are part of the leaks).  My Dad is a painter and that was one of the service missions they were told about (a full time painter to paint and repair and keep up buildings at the PCC.)  So they would work full time and pay for their mission too!

They still want to go sometime if they can, but just can't afford it. 

Would they not wait until they were retired to go?

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Would they not wait until they were retired to go?

They are retired and barely making it on their investments and retirement.  They'd need to borrow or pull out money from their investments to afford to go.

[bluebell]

Got it.  Thanks for explaining.

My grandmother served about 12 years ago.  She had no retirement savings but did get SS and some pension from my grandfather's retirement.  I know she had to be pretty picky when choosing where she wanted to go because some missions were very expensive and others weren't, but she ended up in SLC and the cost was very doable for her. But it was just her and it was a long time ago.  I'm sure it's more expensive now.

[readstoomuch]

Members are encouraged to serve mission as seniors.  I think senior missionaries miss events in the children and grandchildrens lives.  I also find it harder to get to all events as my kids and family members spread all over the states.  I would like more service opportunities for missionaries.  There are some jobs that are clerical or are hard to measure as proselyting and service. They still have to be done for the work to go forward.  I know it would be very hard to run a mission without some senior couples in the office.  

I happen to know about the Polynesian Cultural Center.  PCC is mostly run as a way to support BYU Hawaii students with scholarships and financial need.  The dancers, servers, concessions and guides are all students.  If what I have heard is true, PCC is not a money maker, but rather a way to support the mission of BYUH.  Rental houses in Laie are far less than hotels.  You can go to church locally and hangout at the IGA there.  It is easy to meet the locals and get some understanding of the area. 

Living stipends.  I don`t know, I always knew they were given.  Maybe that is the main message that needs to get out there.  I also know what it costs to pay someone with an MBA or advanced degree to work in a business.  The Church is a far bigger endeavor than the business I am involved with.  I know the owners of the company make far more than GA`s.  One is Lds and said he wouldn't work for what the Church pays.  I am still impressed by what I see the Church able to do with their resources.  Despite all the money people claim they have, I think it would cost far more to pay people and then they wouldn't be able to do as much to help people.  I`m going to give them a break on this.  If anything Wikileaks has made me feel better about the Church.  

 

[Guest]

On January 24, 2017 at 4:28 PM, rockpond said:

Another round of leaked documents...

 

Quoting exmormon reddit:

The 8 released leaks consist of:

1. Direct deposit pay advice from 2002 for Joseph B. Wirthlin

2. Internal infographic that outlines the financial benefits for Mission Presidents. Most notably is the instruction to not tell the Area Authorities about these financial arraignments.

3. A financial report from October 2000 for the Polynesian Cultural Center

4. Instructions for how to deal with budget surplus at the stake level.

5. Audit report for a Stake in Utah

6. Line item budget for a video production

7. Services contracted by Kirton McConkie on behalf of the Church.

8. Audio recording from a sacrament meeting where M. Russell Ballard spoke along with David Archuleta and Savannah Stevenson. At 14:42 Ballard can be heard praising some women from the early days of the church for ignoring their priesthood leaders (After Savannah Stevenson tells the story). At 41:58 Ballard tells the crowd that one cannot truly celebrate Christmas without expressing gratitude for Joseph Smith.

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017-01-24-mormonleaks-releases-another-eight-documents-today/

I have to wonder if, whomever is doing this things they are doing a good thing for the Church? As did Judas the Treasurer thought he was doing for Jesus Christ and the Church? 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Got it.  Thanks for explaining.

My grandmother served about 12 years ago.  She had no retirement savings but did get SS and some pension from my grandfather's retirement.  I know she had to be pretty picky when choosing where she wanted to go because some missions were very expensive and others weren't, but she ended up in SLC and the cost was very doable for her. But it was just her and it was a long time ago.  I'm sure it's more expensive now.

My grandparents served a couple of missions, but iirc (I was young) it seemed that they just served a regular proselytizing mission (and they also did help in the mission home office for a few months).

Do you know when this changed?  It seems now that the older couples are utilized to fill work positions that may have previously been paid positions.  (Like a painter at the PCC or a contractor elsewhere or many of the other jobs listed to choose from for service missions.). I know there are still missions to historical sites, etc. too and there may be more teaching involved in those.

Edited January 27, 2017 by JulieM

[Stargazer]

On 1/24/2017 at 3:38 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

The living expense you receive as a missionary is not a wage or salary for services rendered. It is a donation to further the work of the Lord, just as you are donating your time and service to the work of the Lord.

That makes total sense to me.

If I remember correctly, in tithing settlement, one of the declarations is "Exempt".  That's for missionaries and so on.  Exempt means you don't pay.