CV75 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: 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. OK you win! (...but was your mission closed?) Edited January 25, 2017 by CV75
bluebell Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, rongo said: 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 served from 98-99 and we got $144 a month then. We had debit cards that it was automatically deposited onto. We had no mission expenses to pay for out of pocket. It was all personal money. It functioned a lot like the card that we all received in the MTC, that was reloaded automatically and used for whatever we wanted to buy within the walls of the Center. We were specifically told not to tithe our monthly allowance. Quote Having no debt and having savings is my personal definition of wealth, not just high income (often high income earners have commensurate debt). If you are asked to stop working and live off of your savings for three years, what happens when that three years are up and you have to return home with no more savings, no job, and 4 kids? That's not how your stake president seemed to be defining wealthy, but maybe i am misunderstanding. 1
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I understood it to mean, "If you have questions, go to the people with the answers." That was already specified in the previous sentence (with the name and contact info "for all questions" regarding "family finances"). So, why was it necessary to specifically name those NOT to talk to about the money and benefits they are receiving? Just seems odd... "Please do not talk to your Area Presidency, In-Field representative, family members, or anyone else about these matters." Edited January 25, 2017 by JulieM
stemelbow Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: 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. Piece of cake. We often got driven around in the backs of member's fancy cars as if they were our chauffeurs, and it wasn't unheard of that they often got us food from less than 5 star restaurants that they expected us to eat. In one area the members banded together and paid for all of our expenses, even though we got a monthly allotment. They felt we needed more, so we ran a tab at a local grocery store that the members just paid each month. It was embarrassing.
Bernard Gui Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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: 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. 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. The context of my answer was a leader with personal financial questions should go to the people who had the answers and not to bother those who would not. One reason not to make it readily available is that some members would use it as a stick to beat their leaders. Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: The context of my answer was a leader with personal financial questions should go to the people who had the answers and not to bother those who would not. And again, that information was already given (the actual name of the person to contact for "all questions" regarding their "family finances" and the person's phone number and other contact info). So why the need to specifically name those they should NOT discuss or talk to about the money they are receiving? Edited January 25, 2017 by JulieM
CV75 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 24 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! Nope! I'm saying that the request/instruction (a policy prefaced with "Please..."???) regarding appropriate channels for communication is based in the confidential nature of family finances vis-a-vis Church support and who is charged with managing them from the Church's end. It is appropriate to have the request/instruction because of the standard of confidentiality. The opposite of circular! 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: 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? I have never served in any capacity within the church office building but that's not the only place that has access to confidential information. I've had access to confidential mission, ward, stake information my entire adult life. I understand that's not the same as having access to GA info, but I did have access to other info like stake/ward audits etc.
bluebell Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 2 hours 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 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? Unless it's their personal information, it's jerky to leak it. I mean, if you ended up with your neighbor's financial statements, does that mean it would be moral for you to publish them? If your neighbor ended up with your's through no wrong doing on his part, would it be moral for him to publish them, even if there were a LOT of people who wanted to know? I don't believe so. Keeping things confidential when they aren't your's to disclose (and no one is being harmed) is part of my basic definition of being a decent human being. We all know those people who can't be trusted to keep information to themselves-no one usually likes them, for good reason. 2
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: I served from 98-99 and we got $144 a month then. We had debit cards that it was automatically deposited onto. We had no mission expenses to pay for out of pocket. It was all personal money. It functioned a lot like the card that we all received in the MTC, that was reloaded automatically and used for whatever we wanted to buy within the walls of the Center. Wow! Only a few years after me? I'm glad I didn't have debit cards. I'm old school, and still write checks today. We were specifically told not to tithe our monthly allowance. Of course! I didn't pay tithing on my MSF check, either (which was for the companionship). If you are asked to stop working and live off of your savings for three years, what happens when that three years are up and you have to return home with no more savings, no job, and 4 kids? That's why I don't think I'm in the running right now, at 41, with four kids! We are debt-free, though (including mortgage --- we rent). That's also why mission presidents are almost always very well-off, especially if they are bringing children. I think that a large majority of MPs are empty nesters. That's not how your stake president seemed to be defining wealthy, but maybe i am misunderstanding. For the most part, I think the Brethren want lists of recommended men who are well-off. It's possible that some younger men who aren't wealthy are recommended, but rare, I think. Very rare. 1
rockpond Posted January 25, 2017 Author Posted January 25, 2017 14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: The context of my answer was a leader with personal financial questions should go to the people who had the answers and not to bother those who would not. One reason not to make it readily available is that some members would use it as a stick to beat their leaders. Yes - Sorry, I got the different lines of dialogue on here confused. That could be one reason Handbook 1 is not available to all. Although, these days with its online accessibility, a member who wants to "beat their leader" with something in Handbook 1 can probably already do it. On the other hand, perhaps if more members knew of the policies that govern church leadership they might be less inclined to think that they have a grievance with their leader.
Calm Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 4 hours ago, rongo said: 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). There are parts of the world where status is a huge thing and comparing salaries can cause huge and bad issues between members from what I have heard (Russia was notorious for this type of jealous and competition...or so I was told since I was a member of the International branch, not the local). Church callings added to status and anything that indicated where you were on the pecking order assumed inappropriate importance. It seems to me just wisdom to have members avoid those kinds of conversation. A bishop in Eastern Europe apostatized when he was offended by being released and took the Church to court claiming the local church was his. Caused a lot of trouble among the local members. 1
Calm Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 4 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. I suspect allowing games of comparing who is the richest is worse. Edited January 25, 2017 by Calm
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: Unless it's their personal information, it's jerky to leak it. I mean, if you ended up with your neighbor's financial statements, does that mean it would be moral for you to publish them? If your neighbor ended up with your's through no wrong doing on his part, would it be moral for him to publish them, even if there were a LOT of people who wanted to know? I don't believe so. Keeping things confidential when they aren't your's to disclose (and no one is being harmed) is part of my basic definition of being a decent human being. We all know those people who can't be trusted to keep information to themselves-no one usually likes them, for good reason. None of us would be happy if our paystubs, tax returns, letters, or other communications, etc. were posted online anonymously. The voyeuristic glee with which people consume these leaks is disturbing to me. That's not to say that very interesting, and in some cases, concerning things aren't revealed in the leaks. But the leaks are wrong --- morally and ethically. I was asked earlier about why I think the leakers, if discovered, should be subject to Church discipline, and I explained why. If a member of my ward ended up being proven to be involved (usually by admission, or when confronted), I would recommend to the stake president that a council be held (if, and what jurisdiction, is his call to make). And if it were decided to hold it at the ward level, I would consider the harshest form possible (excommunication, if not a MP holder; disfellowshipment, if a MP holder [at the ward level] ).
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, Calm said: There are parts of the world where status is a huge thing and comparing salaries can cause huge and bad issues between members from what I have heard (Russia was notorious for this type of jealous and competition...or so I was told since I was a member of the International branch, not the local). Church callings added to status and anything that indicated where you were on the pecking order assumed inappropriate importance. It seems to me just wisdom to have members avoid those kinds of conversation. A bishop in Eastern Europe apostatized when he was offended by being released and took the Church to court claiming the local church was his. Caused a lot of trouble among the local members. I agree that these things should be strictly confidential, for a lot of reasons, including the above. It's just that, like JulieM posted, knowing these things does factor into our overall morale and feeling. Which is one of the reasons why they are best kept confidential.
Calm Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 3 hours 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 I don't know the legality, but isn't it essentially stealing others' property whether or not surreptitiously obtained? If one walked into a company and walked out with a folder they had been given to read, but not to own, stealing,right? Something about intellectual property? Edited January 25, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 3 hours ago, JulieM said: Which is none of your business. Neither is the personal income of our leaders our business, imo. 2
cinepro Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Regardless of how you feel about the leaks specifically, based on what I'm seeing in my Facebook feed, I think it's never been more true that "ignorance is (was) bliss." 1
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, cinepro said: Regardless of how you feel about the leaks specifically, based on what I'm seeing in my Facebook feed, I think it's never been more true that "ignorance is (was) bliss." In what way? Is it your sense that, overall, there is some concern among TBMs? I'm not dialed into social media, so I can only gauge people I actually know, or people here. I'm not sure how big this issue is. I suspect that a great many active members are not aware of emerging issues at all.
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Calm said: Neither is the personal income of our leaders our business, imo. I agree that it's wrong to leak personal pay stubs but that doesn't make it our business regarding whether or not someone has a temple recommend. I do believe we as contributing members of the church are not wrong to ask for more financial transparency from our leaders though. I also believe that it IS "our business" when we pay and contribute. I know others don't care, or feel this way, but many do. Edited January 25, 2017 by JulieM 1
rockpond Posted January 25, 2017 Author Posted January 25, 2017 1 minute ago, rongo said: In what way? Is it your sense that, overall, there is some concern among TBMs? I'm not dialed into social media, so I can only gauge people I actually know, or people here. I'm not sure how big this issue is. I suspect that a great many active members are not aware of emerging issues at all. I'm interested in Cinepro's impression but here is mine: Over the past few years, many members have been facing continual "hits" against things they thought they knew about the church: What they were taught about how polygamy was practiced - wrong. What they learned about the reasons for the priesthood ban - disavowed. How they understood the Book of Mormon to have been translated - false. Origins of the Book of Abraham - not what they were told. Etc. Learning that the GA "stipend" is equivalent to a six-figure salary (very wealthy by the standards of many) can now be added to that list.
Calm Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: 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. Points for the vampire bats.
rongo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, JulieM said: I agree that it's wrong to leak personal pay stubs but that doesn't make it our business regarding whether or not someone has a temple recommend. No, but it does make it their priesthood leaders' business. And, the "sunshine is the best disinfectant" people will lose their minds if they are ever disciplined by the Church.
JulieM Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 1 minute ago, rongo said: No, but it does make it their priesthood leaders' business. Exactly. So unless rodheadlee is their priesthood leader, it's none of his business just as I stated.
Calm Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 50 minutes ago, JulieM said: That was already specified in the previous sentence (with the name and contact info "for all questions" regarding "family finances"). So, why was it necessary to specifically name those NOT to talk to about the money and benefits they are receiving? Just seems odd... "Please do not talk to your Area Presidency, In-Field representative, family members, or anyone else about these matters." Possibly because some might feel comfortable to talk with those in close church callings and asked if they could if the instruction had been fully generic or because they had run into situations where this had happened even with a generic instruction and it had caused issues which they wished to avoid in the future.
Recommended Posts