CV75 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 13 hours ago, bluebell said: A lot of the missionaries I knew who served out of the US had maids and sometimes even cooks. I was always a little jealous. They even did their laundry! In my mission, they also wore our laundry... an odd sight! 2
CV75 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, cinepro said: I wouldn't be jealous of anyone serving in an area where they could afford a maid or a cook. Mine was the best mission in the world. Shigella, malaria, giardia (wait, and there's more!!!) included! 13 hours ago, JulieM said: Which is fine, IMO if they can afford that on what is given them (out of what their parents have paid each month for their mission or whoever is paying). But who is paying for the maids, cellphones for their teens, etc., for the mission presidents? That is my question, but maybe no on knows where the funds come out of? This was late 70's, and ours were included in the $50/month we paid the landlords, which was part of out total $90/month expense budget. I bet they were paid less than a dollar a day. 13 hours ago, bluebell said: They didn't pay them, the church did, but I know what you mean. ...and then we had to start washing our own garments, due to the aforementioned "borrowing"... 13 hours ago, JulieM said: So were the maids instructed to not paying tithing on the funds they received from the church just as mission presidents are instructed not to? Or were they expected to pay tithing? Ours were not LDS. 12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: New MormonLeaks? No, chronic parasitic diarrhea is common in these countries. Same old, same old. Edited January 25, 2017 by CV75 1
CV75 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 30 minutes ago, rongo said: On what? I had no income as a missionary. Monthly MSF checks to the companionship (for train tickets, some food, etc.) weren't income. And, we didn't receive any instructions not to report it to the IRS, or even tell the area presidency about it (that part sounds weird to me). Would you mind transcribing that section on the instructions about area presidencies? Thank you,
HappyJackWagon Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, rongo said: I see a big difference between the companionship MSF check (I guess they're all electronic now with cards, right?), and the mission presidents' pay. For one thing, it's the mission presidents' to keep. And, there are the forceful instructions about not telling anyone, even the area presidency. I also see a huge difference for full time missionaries. In many cases it is their own, or their parent's money being paid so that they can volunteer full time. That isn't income. It's more like removing funds from a savings account. You make a point about paying tithing on gifts because it is income to you just as a lawn mower pays tithing on money you pay him for mowing your lawn. These are very different things. The lawn mower is working to earn an income the gift receiver is not. Do you pay tithing on the value of your birthday and Christmas presents? or only the cash? A gift is not payment because nothing has been earned. Regarding the GA's who are paid, I hope they pay tithing on the income they receive. It would be very hypocritical if they didn't so I suspect they do. The part I found really fascinating was that Mission Presidents were not supposed to tell the Area Authorities about their benefits. Secret keeping among the ranks can't be good for morale. Quote 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. Edited January 25, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 2
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 13 minutes ago, CV75 said: Would you mind transcribing that section on the instructions about area presidencies? Thank you, See HappyJack, above. I mistook area presidency for area authorities. Still kind of a bizarre instruction, isn't it? 1
Popular Post JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said: What the leaks are providing is something the church has refused to provide, a bit of financial transparency. We are starting to have a bit of an idea of how things are run. Misconceptions, good and bad, are being put to rest. If you're bored, be thankful there is nothing to get too fired up about. Personally, I appreciate having some actual numbers instead of the vague word "modest," which was easily interpreted in many ways as the post-leak discussions have amply shown. I'm looking forward to more leaks and learning about how our church is financially administered. Well said. Those who are saying "nothing to see here" are using an old apologetic tactic. That may work for some, but from what I've seen, these leaks have piqued many member's interest and have been very revealing. I was at lunch with several women from our ward and the "no paid clergy" that has been taught over and over from the paid leaders came up. These sisters are active members of the church, but expressed how this has caused them to look at the leaders differently now. They now know they are paid, and paid well and that they fly around first class, all expenses paid plus a generous salary. Maybe not as much as other corporate CEO's, but is that how we are supposed to think of them? Many of them are much older men who could be living on a "modest" stipend as previously taught or just from their retirement income like most older members of the church have to do (who are asked to leave their families and pay for their own missions and expenses from their modest retirement). Now members know how much the leaders are paid (and the list is growing with knowing who is accepting the pay because of the leaks) and they are no longer thought of as they once were from what I can see (by some members). Of course we still know they are good, humble men who spend a lot of time in service and we love and respect them. This transparency is good though and is forcing the church to make more honest statements about this and other things too. I say keep them coming (and it appears they will)! Edited January 25, 2017 by JulieM 6
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 One thing I read yesterday from those running the Mormon Leaks website is that they have not been contacted by the church or attorneys, only the Deseret News. And, that more leaks are coming in now because people trust that their anonymity will be assured as has been the case with the leaks so far. So more are coming forward.
Popular Post rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 25, 2017 19 minutes ago, JulieM said: Well said. Those who are saying "nothing to see here" are using an old apologetic tactic. That may work for some, but from what I've seen, these leaks have piqued many member's interest and have been very revealing. I was at lunch with several women from our ward and the "no paid clergy" that has been taught over and over from the paid leaders came up. These sisters are active members of the church, but expressed how this has caused them to look at the leaders differently now. They now know they are paid, and paid well and that they fly around first class, all expenses paid plus a generous salary. Maybe not as much as other corporate CEO's, but is that how we are supposed to think of them? Many of them are much older men who could be living on a "modest" stipend as previously taught or just from their retirement income like most older members of the church have to do (who are asked to leave their families and pay for their own missions and expenses from their modest retirement). Now members know how much the leaders are paid (and the list is growing with knowing who is accepting the pay because of the leaks) and they are no longer thought of as they once were from what I can see (by some members). Of course we still know they are good, humble men who spend a lot of time in service and we love and respect them. This transparency is good though and is forcing the church to make more honest statements about this and other things too. I say keep them coming (and it appears they will)! Well said. This aligns with how I feel. The Brethren are good men. They hold the priesthood keys --- I really believe they do --- and the kingdom of God is here in our day with the Church. However, I find the secretiveness and wordsmithing of the last several decades to be somewhat troubling (modest stipend/living allowance, no paid clergy, under no circumstances report this to the IRS or say that you are paid, don't tell area authorities, etc.). By nature, I detest leaks. I still have never gone and read the MormonLeaks material because of this Abscheu. I don't like military or government leaks, either (e.g., Assange, Snowden, during the campaign affecting both sides, etc.). Yet, some things would never come to light without them, so I have to admit that I am now torn. I'm not ready to say that leaks can lead to good, but . . . Maybe good will come from these, for the better. 5
rodheadlee Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 It's really sad that a few sell their soul for a few shiny trinkets. I'll bet they even have TRs. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: It's really sad that a few sell their soul for a few shiny trinkets. I'll bet they even have TRs. That's nice and judgy of you. What about leaks would disqualify someone from having a TR? Is it the question: "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?" Is there something inherently dishonest about leaking a document? I acknowledge that in some cases documents may have been obtained surreptitiously but I don't know for sure. Do people who hide information hold TR's? Is it possible there is some dishonesty in withholding info as well? 2
bluebell Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, rongo said: On what? I had no income as a missionary. Monthly MSF checks to the companionship (for train tickets, some food, etc.) weren't income. And, we didn't receive any instructions not to report it to the IRS, or even tell the area presidency about it (that part sounds weird to me). Gifts aren't income either though, right? I really don't care either way, i was just wondering, since you seem to have strong feelings on all money received needing to be tithed.
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: It's really sad that a few sell their soul for a few shiny trinkets. I'll bet they even have TRs. Which is none of your business. 1
bluebell Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: That's nice and judgy of you. What about leaks would disqualify someone from having a TR? Is it the question: "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?" Is there something inherently dishonest about leaking a document? I acknowledge that in some cases documents may have been obtained surreptitiously but I don't know for sure. Do people who hide information hold TR's? Is it possible there is some dishonesty in withholding info as well? If they have stolen the information or obtained it by being dishonest, then obviously that's immoral. No one has a right to information just because they think it would be interesting to know. Leaking information just to do so, when it serves no purpose other than to satisfy someone's curiosity, seems pretty morally sketchy. 3
CV75 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: See HappyJack, above. I mistook area presidency for area authorities. Still kind of a bizarre instruction, isn't it? It says: “Contact Steve [redacted] (1-801-240[redacted]@ldschurch.org, or fax: 1-801-207[redacted] for all questions regarding your family’s finances. Please do not talk to your Area Presidency, In-Field Services representative, family members, or anyone else about these matters. The support that you receive from the Church is confidential, and all policies and exceptions are administered by the Finance Division of the Missionary Department.” None of those listed as “do not talk to” are simply authorized to handle Church these fiscal support matters, or related confidentiality, policy and exceptions. Seems very appropriate to me. Edited January 25, 2017 by CV75 2
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: Gifts aren't income either though, right? I really don't care either way, i was just wondering, since you seem to have strong feelings on all money received needing to be tithed. I consider gifts to be income. The monthly MSF check, for train tickets, Ausstellung (street display) fees, etc., I didn't consider to be a gift. It was for actual mission expenses encountered throughout the day. I didn't keep any MSF, personally, nor did I use it to buy souvenirs, develop film, etc. I used personal money for that. Mission president pay, on the other hand, is "keep-able." That is, any unused money can be kept, deposited, and taken home. It is their money, not just for expenses. Our former stake president told me that stake presidents are asked to provide lists of men who are wealthy (and therefore could afford to not work at their job for three years) who could be considered as mission presidents. This means that mission presidents are already men in a comfortable condition of means (as opposed to men for whom the three year service would present a real hardship, and who would need to be heavily supported by the Church). I don't think anyone expects them to pay for the expense of feeding missionaries, traveling, entertaining visitors, etc. But they are reimbursed for expenses and also earn a good income as well.
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: If they have stolen the information or obtained it by being dishonest, then obviously that's immoral. No one has a right to information just because they think it would be interesting to know. Leaking information just to do so, when it serves no purpose other than to satisfy someone's curiosity, seems pretty morally sketchy. I think the very act of leaking information they had access to for work is a violation of the temple recommend questions. Obviously, it is not okay from the Church's perspective (to put it mildly) for them to leak (whether stolen, accessed legitimately, or whatever), and release it anonymously. I think they should be formally disciplined if it can be proven who they are, although the Church might choose not to out of PR considerations. 2
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 16 hours ago, The Nehor said: Man, I was hoping for a 1988 memo on travel expenses in Africa. And a spreadsheet on the General Authorities' yacht they keep over at the Great Salt Lake Yacht Club. 1
ERayR Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: New MormonLeaks? Oh. One of these days. Just you wait...
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, bluebell said: A lot of the missionaries I knew who served out of the US had maids and sometimes even cooks. I was always a little jealous. They even did their laundry! We had maids in Central America because we had no way to do our own washing. They did our laundry on the rocks in the river in Honduras. In a couple of places, the ladies had machines. Sometimes the lady who owned our pension did washing in addition to cooking for us. I don't remember how much we paid them. One mission joke: You'll know you have time in the mission when you can't figure out which hole to use to put on your garments. Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rongo said: I think the very act of leaking information they had access to for work is a violation of the temple recommend questions. Obviously, it is not okay from the Church's perspective (to put it mildly) for them to leak (whether stolen, accessed legitimately, or whatever), and release it anonymously. I think they should be formally disciplined if it can be proven who they are, although the Church might choose not to out of PR considerations. What commandment are they breaking worthy of church discipline? Quote Bluebell- If they have stolen the information or obtained it by being dishonest, then obviously that's immoral. No one has a right to information just because they think it would be interesting to know. Leaking information just to do so, when it serves no purpose other than to satisfy someone's curiosity, seems pretty morally sketchy. I think there is a strong argument to be made that there is a valid purpose in leaking these documents. You seem to be assuming dishonest actions on the part of the leakers, as if anyone in possession of this material must have obtained it through deceit or treachery What if some of these docs were leaked by family members with access to the personal info? If one party claims something is confidential, does that automatically tie the hands of the other person, preventing them from ever sharing information? Or would both parties need to agree or possibly even contract an agreement about confidentiality? Edited January 25, 2017 by HappyJackWagon
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 15 hours ago, bluebell said: They didn't pay them, the church did, but I know what you mean. We paid maids and cooks out of the money we got from home.
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 15 hours ago, JulieM said: So were the maids instructed to not paying tithing on the funds they received from the church just as mission presidents are instructed not to? Or were they expected to pay tithing? We paid our maids and cooks out of the money from our families. Many of them were non-members.
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: What commandment are they breaking worthy of church discipline? Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men? Normally, people aren't formally disciplined for dishonesty, unless it involves the legal system. I think illegally passing on confidential Church information when having access, or "fencing" such goods, could be construed as serious enough to warrant formal Church action. Remember, the three reasons for Church discipline are: 1) Bring the person to full repentance 2) Protect the innocent 3) Protect the Church's good name I think that all three of these come into play with leaks that are directly defying the Church and what it wants to remain confidential. That also could approach apostasy, couldn't it? 1
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think there is a strong argument to be made that there is a valid purpose in leaking these documents. You seem to be assuming dishonest actions on the part of the leakers, as if anyone in possession of this material must have obtained it through deceit or treachery Whether or not they legitimately had access to it (because they work for the Church) is irrelevant. They do not have the right to publish it, and they know it. That's why they're acting anonymously. 1
stemelbow Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, rongo said: Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men? Normally, people aren't formally disciplined for dishonesty, unless it involves the legal system. I think illegally passing on confidential Church information when having access, or "fencing" such goods, could be construed as serious enough to warrant formal Church action. Remember, the three reasons for Church discipline are: 1) Bring the person to full repentance 2) Protect the innocent 3) Protect the Church's good name I think that all three of these come into play with leaks that are directly defying the Church and what it wants to remain confidential. That also could approach apostasy, couldn't it? meh...shrug shoulders and leave it to others to deal with. We have no business in any of these cases. It's possible God directs people to do all sorts of things we simply wouldn't think He'd want done. Maybe there is purpose here. We don't know the outcome.
Recommended Posts