strappinglad Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) I have read the OP, a couple of times. I can see the point about not spreading the info around and discussing it as it was illegally obtained. From my extensive TV court room watching, it is clear that such illegally obtained info, even if totally correct, would not be allowed in a court to advance a conviction. The trouble is, we are now in the court of public opinion and it seems to me that it will be necessary to comment on and provide rational defense as needed. The future will be replete with such leaks for all people and organizations. How or even if we battle to keep any privacy will be the major question . For me, the perpetrator/s of these leaks should be given a shovel and broom and shown the Marriot center parking lot as their next assignment. They can leak about it if they want. Edited January 29, 2017 by strappinglad 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 39 minutes ago, strappinglad said: I have read the OP, a couple of times. I can see the point about not spreading the info around and discussing it as it was illegally obtained. From my extensive TV court room watching, it is clear that such illegally obtained info, even if totally correct, would not be allowed in a court to advance a conviction. The trouble is, we are now in the court of public opinion and it seems to me that it will be necessary to comment on and provide rational defense as needed. The future will be replete with such leaks for all people and organizations. How or even if we battle to keep any privacy will be the major question . For me, the perpetrator/s of these leaks should be given a shovel and broom and shown the Marriot center parking lot as their next assignment. They can leak about it if they want. Actually real justice would be to have their personal information put online. How it was obtained is a separate issue one whether we should discuss it. The whole Russian hack think is an example of this. Yes Russia hacked some servers and got private information. That aspect is bad. But the information released on that was important and was good to get it out on the public. I think the overall lesson is the more honest and transparent one is, the less one has to worry about hacking and leaks. Plus when one is transparent and honest, they control the narrative of the discussion rather than the leakers or hackers. Be out in front rather than playing catch up. One rarely can go wrong by being too honest and open about things.
strappinglad Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 28 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: . . One rarely can go wrong by being too honest and open about things. The problem is that there are some who lie in wait to deceive and are quite prepared to do harm to a neighbor over a word. We live in the era of the 30 second sound bite and the gotcha question. Few will take more than a couple of minutes to research a complex issue. Heavens, I baulk at you-tube videos that last more than 10 minutes. I doubt that I am in the minority. Sad I know!!! " Is there anything in your past that needs to be put right? , Oh and anything you say will be uploaded to the internet immediately without explanation or clarification " Ready, set, GO ! 1
why me Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 I think that it depends on the role of the board. In the old times, it would have been discussed by the apologists because the board at that time defended the church. It was a hard hitting board when it was a FAIR board. If the board is here to defend the church, then it should be discussed since members who are troubled by the information can come here and read from active member interpretations., Or read the debate about it. But if this is just a social board where people gather for a chat on their off time, maybe it should not be discussed because the information was illegally obtained. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Apparently the Mods have allowed this discussion to go forward. I'm thankful they haven't arbitrarily blocked entire topics for discussion based on Cdowis' offense at leaks. It is troubling when people attempt to muffle discussion. Secrecy and non-communication aren't pillars of strong organizations and I think the church is learning that lesson. I'm very glad we are still able to have discussions on a discussion board. Thanks, Mods! 1
Rain Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Apparently the Mods have allowed this discussion to go forward. I'm thankful they haven't arbitrarily blocked entire topics for discussion based on Cdowis' offense at leaks. It is troubling when people attempt to muffle discussion. Secrecy and non-communication aren't pillars of strong organizations and I think the church is learning that lesson. I'm very glad we are still able to have discussions on a discussion board. Thanks, Mods! I really don't think he was trying to muffle conversation. I think the idea was to have respect for privacy/legality. It may have the same ending, but very different intentions. 2
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 It is a subject I am torn on. I am very much into education on everything at all levels and seeing primary sources, but I also see drawing attention to immoral and illegal in intent websites as rewarding them. Usually if there is value in discussion, I figure I try balance the two masters by not providing links that raise their hit quota, but discussing them critically (both in the sense of careful analysis and bringing attention to dishonesty and promotion of dishonesty). I am not sure if that choice makes me a hypocrite or not. 2
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Thanks to the mods for treating the subject with respect and taking time to discuss. 4
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 The most interesting thing I've seen from the leaks is the pay information. We've been told they've gotten a modest living expense to cover needs and billsfor so long. Even though I doubted them, it was still a bit of a shock to learn how much they get paid added to their other benefits. I mean, no doubt they earn it. The amount is fine with me. But, that they've told us otherwise for so long is troublesome. Other than that, there hasn't been much to note, even though I've made a few notes about them anyway. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The most interesting thing I've seen from the leaks is the pay information. We've been told they've gotten a modest living expense to cover needs and billsfor so long. Even though I doubted them, it was still a bit of a shock to learn how much they get paid added to their other benefits. I mean, no doubt they earn it. The amount is fine with me. But, that they've told us otherwise for so long is troublesome. Other than that, there hasn't been much to note, even though I've made a few notes about them anyway. I can understand this. It's not that they get "paid" or a larger stipend than thought. It's that some members find it troubling that they haven't been open about it. I don't think anyone actually has an issue with them receiving some funding.
bluebell Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The most interesting thing I've seen from the leaks is the pay information. We've been told they've gotten a modest living expense to cover needs and billsfor so long. Even though I doubted them, it was still a bit of a shock to learn how much they get paid added to their other benefits. I mean, no doubt they earn it. The amount is fine with me. But, that they've told us otherwise for so long is troublesome. Other than that, there hasn't been much to note, even though I've made a few notes about them anyway. This is the kind of thing that I find so interesting. Like you've I've heard the modest stipend thing since i was in high school, but i always assumed it was a bit more than they actually get. For all that they do (the amount of hours they work in a week), i agree with the church's use of the word 'modest'. I wouldn't be surprised if their hourly wage ended up being not much more than minimum wage if it was broken down to that. That's not to say that your definition or mine is more correct, but it does illustrate how much in our interactions with the church is subjective and based on our personality and experiences more than on what the church is doing or saying. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 4 hours ago, Rain said: I really don't think he was trying to muffle conversation. I think the idea was to have respect for privacy/legality. It may have the same ending, but very different intentions. You may be right about motivation but that doesn't change the fact that he was trying to muffle conversation. When parents, PTA's, and schools banned book because they didn't want children exposed to certain content, they had good intentions. But that doesn't change the fact that they banned books. We can argue about the benefits of banning, or the intentions of the banners. But we can't argue that they didn't ban books.
bluebell Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: You may be right about motivation but that doesn't change the fact that he was trying to muffle conversation. When parents, PTA's, and schools banned book because they didn't want children exposed to certain content, they had good intentions. But that doesn't change the fact that they banned books. We can argue about the benefits of banning, or the intentions of the banners. But we can't argue that they didn't ban books. Sometimes muffling a conversation is the only moral thing to do (like when someone is being a bully, or my previous example, when someone steals a private note or someone's journal and then reads it out loud in class). 2
HappyJackWagon Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: Sometimes muffling a conversation is the only moral thing to do (like when someone is being a bully, or my previous example, when someone steals a private note or someone's journal and then reads it out loud in class). True. Muffling may be the right thing to do. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's my only point. 1
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 53 minutes ago, bluebell said: This is the kind of thing that I find so interesting. Like you've I've heard the modest stipend thing since i was in high school, but i always assumed it was a bit more than they actually get. For all that they do (the amount of hours they work in a week), i agree with the church's use of the word 'modest'. I wouldn't be surprised if their hourly wage ended up being not much more than minimum wage if it was broken down to that. That's not to say that your definition or mine is more correct, but it does illustrate how much in our interactions with the church is subjective and based on our personality and experiences more than on what the church is doing or saying. Alright. Its seem to me their benefit is anything but modest. It puts them among the top percentages of wages earners in the US, but that's excluding the benefits they rake in on top. Granted, in terms of US market for the type of job they do, it is quite low. But to characterize it as modest, is just dishonest.
bluebell Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Alright. Its seem to me their benefit is anything but modest. It puts them among the top percentages of wages earners in the US, but that's excluding the benefits they rake in on top. Granted, in terms of US market for the type of job they do, it is quite low. But to characterize it as modest, is just dishonest. It's dishonest, to you. It's not dishonest to me. That's my point. Again from my perspective, if someone is working 100 hours a week, that's a modest income. I realize others disagree. Most of the troubles in the world start with a refusal to consider that someone else's point of view may be as valid as our own, just seen from a different angle. 1
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 21 minutes ago, stemelbow said: but that's excluding the benefits they rake in on top. Everyone keeps talking about all the benefits they get... Any documentation on this as opposed to hearsay accounts? 3
HappyJackWagon Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's dishonest, to you. It's not dishonest to me. That's my point. Again from my perspective, if someone is working 100 hours a week, that's a modest income. I realize others disagree. Most of the troubles in the world start with a refusal to consider that someone else's point of view may be as valid as our own, just seen from a different angle. That's true. "Modest stipend" is truly in the eyes of the beholder as it is a totally subjective phrase. Still, the church may want to rethink the way they describe the stipend as it puts the GA's in the top 1% of wage earners worldwide. That will likely not be viewed as "modest" by most members around the world. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Calm said: Everyone keeps talking about all the benefits they get... Any documentation on this as opposed to hearsay accounts? I think we need more leaks I think there is a fair measure of extrapolation about GA benefits by looking at the mission president's handbook about benefits. It's hard to imagine mission presidents get more benefits than the GA's. 1
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's dishonest, to you. It's not dishonest to me. That's my point. Again from my perspective, if someone is working 100 hours a week, that's a modest income. I realize others disagree. Most of the troubles in the world start with a refusal to consider that someone else's point of view may be as valid as our own, just seen from a different angle. I got your point. But I still strongly disagree. I can't imagine the word "modest" applying in any sense, even if they did possibly work 100 hours a week. When one takes home more than 90 percent of the country and 99.9% of the world, it's quite a stretch to apply "modest" to that amount. In no sensible way can modest apply. So it's dishonest. Why you think it is not dishonest doesn't really make sense to me. The claim of modest has nothing to do with how many hours they put in. it has had everything to do with describing how much money they get to the masses (most of whom don't get near as much).
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) "It's hard to imagine mission presidents get more benefits than the GA's" Actually I think it is highly unlikely they get the same given that the MP assignment requires people to move often to a different country for only three years and are given living quarters rather than choosing their own. Giving someone a benefit for three years isn't that big of a deal, especially due to the massive life disruption at the beginning and the end of the assignment. Making those benefits lifetime...possibly forty years when they might not be moving to a new location at all, let alone twice in three years...I don't see the two as inherently comparable. Benefits given based on need rather than as rewards would be very different. Edited January 30, 2017 by Calm 1
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Everyone keeps talking about all the benefits they get... Any documentation on this as opposed to hearsay accounts? Not from me. We'd need leaks to get documentation, I'd think. This is, of course, a huge part of the problem. We don't know and can't know unless given something with documentation. Each story some random person tells is all we have, it seems. And what some have said, they get tons of benefits.
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 If no documentation, then why assume they are significant? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Apparently the Mods have allowed this discussion to go forward. I'm thankful they haven't arbitrarily blocked entire topics for discussion based on Cdowis' offense at leaks. It is troubling when people attempt to muffle discussion. Secrecy and non-communication aren't pillars of strong organizations and I think the church is learning that lesson. I'm very glad we are still able to have discussions on a discussion board. Thanks, Mods! I notice that discussion delving into speculation is being disallowed. I hope this will curb a lot of the free-wheeling negativity, pooled ignorance and rumor mongering that has characterized such threads heretofore. Edited January 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
JulieM Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Calm said: Everyone keeps talking about all the benefits they get... Any documentation on this as opposed to hearsay accounts? Don't they get their health insurance paid on top of their salary/stipend? Do they purchase all of their own airline tickets out of their salary or does the church pay for those and make travel arrangements for them? I'm just throwing those out there as possibilities of what people may be referring to... Edited January 30, 2017 by JulieM 1
Recommended Posts