MormonLeaks Releases Another 8 Documents Today

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

In my mission, they also wore our laundry... an odd sight!

In my mission they wore out our laundry on river rocks.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Mine was the best mission in the world. Shigella, malaria, giardia (wait, and there's more!!!) included!

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.

...and then we had to start washing our own garments, due to the aforementioned "borrowing"...

Ours were not LDS.

No, chronic parasitic diarrhea is common in these countries. Same old, same old.

Child's play compared with my mission.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour 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)!

Perhaps the Franciscans are on to something. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour 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?

I would have a problem with leakers if they had signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of their employment or Church volunteer service or if they obtaineed the documents illegally.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?

That has to go both ways though.  Many feel past statements about no paid clergy are dishonest statements.

Is no financial transparency honest or misrepresentation of how the leaders are paid a generous salary honest?

I do get your point about the leaks, though.  However, we have no idea how they were obtained.  But, even if they were obtained honestly (from a family member etc.), the person may have many reasons to remain anonymous.

Edited January 25, 2017 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

 

I served as financial secretary and assistant to my two mission presidents. One owned a pharmacy and one was a BYU professor. Both brought their large families and one had a child on his mission. Neither lived lavishly nor got rich from their service. When General Authorities visited we did not wine and dine them or provide special amenities. They were quite spartan and made few demands, much to my surprise.

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Child's play compared with my mission.

 

On my mission we had to hunt and kill bears to get fur to make our clothes. We had to travel to and from our proselyting area barefoot through six feet of snow uphill both ways with dinosaurs nipping at our heels the whole way.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That has to go both ways though.  Many feel past statements about no paid clergy are dishonest statements.

Is no financial transparency honest or misrepresentation of how the leaders are paid a generous salary honest?

To me, even if one feels that the Church hasn't been transparent/honest in the past, it still doesn't justify anonymously leaking confidential information. I think the Church should discipline those involved, though I doubt that it will out of PR considerations.

I do get your point about the leaks, though.  However, we have no idea how they were obtained.  But, even if they were obtained honestly (from a family member etc.), the person may have many reasons to remain anonymous.

I don't think it matters how they were obtained. Best-case scenario: they are just passing them along. That makes them just as guilty and culpable as if they had personally obtained them, in my book.

Even if it's "for the greater good," it still isn't right.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

To me, even if one feels that the Church hasn't been transparent/honest in the past, it still doesn't justify anonymously leaking confidential information. I think the Church should discipline those involved, though I doubt that it will out of PR considerations.

 

 

I don't think it matters how they were obtained. Best-case scenario: they are just passing them along. That makes them just as guilty and culpable as if they had personally obtained them, in my book.

Even if it's "for the greater good," it still isn't right.

Yeah, I get your point and mostly agree.

The old "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here I think.

[rongo]

Just now, JulieM said:

Yeah, I get your point and mostly agree.

The old "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here I think.

I feel the same way about political leaks. Even when I'm grateful for revelations against "my political enemies" that otherwise wouldn't have come to light or been revealed. The whole leaking culture and obsession is unsavory. 

I'm always fascinated by how fast new things are leaked. When the new handbooks came out in 2010, they were immediately available on WikiLeaks. Immediately --- like before I even got my copies. For it to be that fast, it had to have been a high-placed person at the COB, not just some bishopric counselor somewhere. 

Makes you wonder just how many moles and people who don't mean the Church well there are working for it, with access to sensitive, confidential stuff.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Child's play compared with my mission.

Ooops, I must have forgotten to mention bombs, earthquakes rogue militia...

...and turkeys that wake you up at 3 a.m.

Edited January 25, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

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 these fiscal support matters, or related confidentiality, policy and exceptions. Seems very appropriate to me.

Edited January 25, 2017 by CV75

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

On my mission we had to hunt and kill bears to get fur to make our clothes. We had to travel to and from our proselyting area barefoot through six feet of snow uphill both ways with dinosaurs nipping at our heels the whole way.

We had to walk or ride bikes in a couple of my areas, even if it was a bit nippy out.  Even in areas we had a car to take us from place to place we had to limit our miles, so we made the decision at least a few times to walk or ride our bikes even when we had a car sitting there.  It was rough! 

[HappyJackWagon]

58 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would have a problem with leakers if they had signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of their employment or Church volunteer service or if they obtaineed the documents illegally.

But we don't know that any of those things happened.

As a church volunteer (in callings) I don't recall ever signing any kind of non-disclosure agreement so I think it's safe to say that clerks don't sign non-disclosure agreements either. That means the leaks about stake info would have been obtained legally with no legal reason why they couldn't be shared. Church employees may or may not sign a non-disclosure agreement. I don't really know.

Does anyone have information about non-disclosures for church employees? Would every level employee sign, or just certain employees with a security access to sensitive information?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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.

 

We didn't pay for any of that with our mission funds.  Ours went towards strictly food and personal stuff.  We were asked not to have much personal money because it made it harder on missionaries from situations that could not afford to send to send much money.  Everyone got the occasional $20 from home but that was all it was supposed to be.

I know at least one mission president family (with four young kids) who was called because they had worked really hard to have no debt and have a big savings which made it possible for them to not work for 3 years, so not all mission presidents are wealthy.  

[jbarm]

I am outraged that no one has commented on the leaks of a Stake Audit or how they deal with surpluses in a Stake's budget.

I'm primarily outraged because I am a Stake Auditor and the info is so mundane I found it laughable that someone found it to be worth even posting as  a 'leak'.

Nice to have an entity like the Church with truly boring financial information ... unless you count Primary receipts submitted for reimbursement that calculate sales tax incorrectly as something that is fascinating. (Some auditors just love to find $0.10 errors like this).

To summarize the two leaks findings:

1. Surplus in Stake budget.  You can't keep the surplus for the next year unless you have a specific plan for the funds. Woo.

2. Stake Audit findings.  One of the wards isn't keeping Other Funds tracked properly (usually associated with Girls Camp or Scout Camp) in that they have to zero out the funds each year.  

 

jb

Edited January 25, 2017 by jbarm

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But we don't know that any of those things happened.

As a church volunteer (in callings) I don't recall ever signing any kind of non-disclosure agreement so I think it's safe to say that clerks don't sign non-disclosure agreements either. That means the leaks about stake info would have been obtained legally with no legal reason why they couldn't be shared. Church employees may or may not sign a non-disclosure agreement. I don't really know.

Does anyone have information about non-disclosures for church employees? Would every level employee sign, or just certain employees with a security access to sensitive information?

Back when I was employed by the Church I don't recall signing a non-disclosure agreement.  of course, me work didn't get my access to something one might call sensitive information.   I worked for family history and most of the stuff I dealt with was to be found openly online anywho. 

[HappyJackWagon]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

None of those listed as “do not talk to” are simply authorized to handle these fiscal support matters, or related confidentiality, policy and exceptions. Seems very appropriate to me.

You're essentially saying that it's appropriate to have a policy to withhold information from certain people because it is a policy to do so. Circular!

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

On my mission we had to hunt and kill bears to get fur to make our clothes. We had to travel to and from our proselyting area barefoot through six feet of snow uphill both ways with dinosaurs nipping at our heels the whole way.

No way. We had to carry guns to shoot the mosquitos, cockroaches, and leeches. And then there were the communist guerrillas that used our pamphlets for target practice. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're essentially saying that it's appropriate to have a policy to withhold information from certain people because it is a policy to do so. Circular!

I understood it to mean, "If you have questions, go to the people with the answers."

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We didn't pay for any of that with our mission funds.  Ours went towards strictly food and personal stuff.  We were asked not to have much personal money because it made it harder on missionaries from situations that could not afford to send to send much money.  Everyone got the occasional $20 from home but that was all it was supposed to be.

We (Germany Hamburg, mid 1990s) got a check once a month that we cashed (there was no account to deposit it in) and then bought our mass transit passes. There was leftover money for train tickets (the amount varied, based on circumstances. Zone and district leaders or companionships who would have to ride the train a lot got more), fees and registrations (like for street displays), and food and toiletries. We were well-fed by members, but would sometimes cook. Any leftover money at the end of the month was to be returned to the mission office, and we weren't supposed to use it for souvenirs or personal expenses. It was truly a "living allowance." 

I know at least one mission president family (with four young kids) who was called because they had worked really hard to have no debt and have a big savings which made it possible for them to not work for 3 years, so not all mission presidents are wealthy.

Having no debt and having savings is my personal definition of wealth, not just high income (often high income earners have commensurate debt). I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be wealthy, and thus be in a condition where one can serve as a mission president. The current president of the Poland Warsaw Mission, where my parents are, is only 37 with three little kids, but that's a special situation. It's amazing to have a spiritually strong native Pole (his wife is German) who can serve as a MP. They moved from Germany, and his children only speak German, so my dad is the only one outside of their family who can talk to them. They stick to him like glue! 

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But we don't know that any of those things happened.

As a church volunteer (in callings) I don't recall ever signing any kind of non-disclosure agreement so I think it's safe to say that clerks don't sign non-disclosure agreements either. That means the leaks about stake info would have been obtained legally with no legal reason why they couldn't be shared. Church employees may or may not sign a non-disclosure agreement. I don't really know.

Does anyone have information about non-disclosures for church employees? Would every level employee sign, or just certain employees with a security access to sensitive information?

Note that I said if that happened, not that it did happen. Did you volunteer or serve as a missionary, a secretary, or receptionist in the Church Office Building where potentially you would have access to confidential information? 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Ooops, I must have forgotten to mention bombs, earthquakes rogue militia...

...and turkeys that wake you up at 3 a.m.

Pshaw. We had all that plus we were imprisoned for throwing away newspapers with the dictator's photo on the front page, ate monkey meat with boiled milk and raw onions, and had our blood sucked by vampire bats as we slept in our hammocks.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understood it to mean, "If you have questions, go to the people with the answers."

Going to someone with Handbook 1 and asking a question is always a possibility.  But not necessarily efficient.

Having been in a calling in which I had access to Handbook 1, I have two thoughts in this regard:

1. I tried to make Handbook 1 info available, to people who asked, whenever I could.  Some will recall that I did that on these boards as well.
2. Having read much, but not all, of Handbook 1 -- I am at a loss as to why it needs to be confidential.  Someone in SLC obviously feels that it should be and I acknowledge that there may be reasons I am not aware of.  I feel like the net result of allowing all members to access it online or in the gospel library app (where it currently resides) would be positive. 

[Bernard Gui]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We had to walk or ride bikes in a couple of my areas, even if it was a bit nippy out.  Even in areas we had a car to take us from place to place we had to limit our miles, so we made the decision at least a few times to walk or ride our bikes even when we had a car sitting there.  It was rough! 

We had to ride around on the tops of beer trucks and in rickety VW vans sitting next to ladies with live chickens and pigs in their laps.....that night's dinner. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui