HappyJackWagon Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, Calm said: "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. You might be right. Your logic makes sense but the only way we would really know is if the church releases the information. Since we know the church is highly unlikely to do that, we need more leaks
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Edited to add: Happy Jack Wagon has called to my attention that the listing of the following quotes could be misleading in that they did not necessarily occur back to back in the thread. Therefore, please be advised that a given quote below should not necessarily be understood to be a direct response to the quote just preceding it. My intent was to present an assortment of posts here that illustrate the ease with which discussion of so-called wikimormonleaks can quickly devolve into speculation, which the moderators have indicated they intend to disallow. -- s.l. 1 hour ago, Calm said: Everyone keeps talking about all the benefits they get... Any documentation on this as opposed to hearsay accounts? 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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 hour ago, Calm said: "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. 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: 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. 1 hour ago, Calm said: If no documentation, then why assume they are significant? 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: You might be right. Your logic makes sense but the only way we would really know is if the church releases the information. Since we know the church is highly unlikely to do that, we need more leaks So is the above the sort of thing the moderators have in mind when they say no delving into speculation? I'm afraid they might encounter a challenge enforcing that directive while allowing the leaks threads to continue. It may be yet another playing out of the Girl and the Snake story. Edited January 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
bluebell Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. Maybe, for people that have to live and function in the US though, i'm not sure that that tells us anything. For example, if you make $34,000/$47,500 (depending on who you ask) a year you are in the top 1% of wage earners worldwide. Edited January 30, 2017 by bluebell because my brain always forgets the "not" when I'm typing!
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: So is the above the sort of thing the moderators have in mind when they say no delving into speculation? I'm afraid they might encounter a challenge enforcing that directive while allowing the leaks threads to continue. Wait are we speculating that they don't get any benefits or they do get benefits? The paycheck leaks confirms they get some benefits that normal employees might get. So we know they get some benefits. But the main focus is really the amount of money that's been given and how they've characterized it as a modest amount.
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, bluebell said: Maybe, for people that have to live and function in the US though, i'm sure that that tells us anything. For example, if you make $34,000/$47,500 (depending on who you ask) a year you are in the top 1% of wage earners worldwide. That makes the 3 to 4 times that that the GAs rake in seem all the more exorbitant, rather than modest. 1
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, JulieM said: 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... Unless there is documentation, hearsay right? Why should we assume something is given as a benefit when there is nothing but speculation? We know that the Church does a number of things to cut down on costs and make it easier to move funds across borders. It is possible that this tendency may affect how GAs are paid as well. ----- I remember a claim that they didn't pay tithing. That was disproved by the pay stub iirc. Also that their rent/mortgage was paid for them. The parsonage claim disproved that I believe. Edit: the parsonage payment by the church is included in the stipend, if I understand correctly. So yes, the Church pays it, but it is included in the $90,000/now $120,000 and not added on top of it. Same with health insurance as far as I can tell. Edited January 30, 2017 by Calm 3
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Calm said: Unless there is documentation, hearsay right? Why should we assume something is given as a benefit when there is nothing but speculation? We know that the Church does a number of things to cut down on costs and make it easier to move funds across borders. It is possible that this tendency may affect how GAs are paid as well. ----- I remember a claim that they didn't pay tithing. That was disproved by the pay stub iirc. Also that their rent/mortgage was paid for them. The parsonage claim disproved that I believe. From years ago I recall hearing their debts are cleared for them upon being called as well. I don't think the pay stubs prove either of the two claims--that they don't pay tithing and that their rent/mortgage was paid for them. But I'm all ears.
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Wait are we speculating that they don't get any benefits or they do get benefits? The paycheck leaks confirms they get some benefits that normal employees might get. We shouldn't be speculating at all, imo. There are too many things that might be going on that affect the "take home" amount....could make it huge, could make it small. Likely doesn't affect it much, but who knows save those directly involved? (Nor should it be known, imo, if it is personal stuff) What benefits were listed on the pay stub? 1
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't think the pay stubs prove either of the two claims--that they don't pay tithing and that their rent/mortgage was paid for them. But I'm all ears. The pay stub disproved those claims, not proved... Add-on: have done some reading, so I may be wrong about the parsonage since it is a pay stub. Will need to check and read what Danzo wrote again. Edited January 30, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Grant Palmer threw out that debt paid claim along with a lot of other crap, I don't trust him as a source given his obvious ego involvement (presenting a rogue GA as coming to him secretly once a month or so to learn from his awesome wisdom while the stuff he was spouting as the ultimate truth could be found with a few days internet search). Edited January 30, 2017 by Calm
JulieM Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Calm said: The pay stub disproved those claims, not proved. Yes, iirc at least for Pres. Eyring (tithing) and their living allowance (parsonage is included (again, iirc).
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 32 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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). Modest compared to what the average american worker makes? No. Modest compared to what people doing similar work with similar amounts of organizational responsibility? Undeniably yes! If you look at executive pay at non-profits with a similar amount of responsibility, I'd say 120k is quite modest indeed. 2
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Calm said: We shouldn't be speculating at all, imo. There are too many things that might be going on that affect the "take home" amount....could make it huge, could make it small. Likely doesn't affect it much, but who knows save those directly involved? (Nor should it be known, imo, if it is personal stuff) What benefits were listed on the pay stub? I'd be fine if they weren't telling us they were taking home a modest amount. That simply isn't true. As per their benefits? As I recall they got medical dental, a pre-taxed retirement savings and a post fund retirement savings.
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Modest compared to what the average american worker makes? No. Modest compared to what people doing similar work with similar amounts of organizational responsibility? Undeniably yes! If you look at executive pay at non-profits with a similar amount of responsibility, I'd say 120k is quite modest indeed. I wish they put it with such qualifiers, sure. But as I've seen it, in each case, they claim it's modest amount of money, not comparing to what they feel they should be making. 1
JulieM Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Modest compared to what the average american worker makes? No. Modest compared to what people doing similar work with similar amounts of organizational responsibility? Undeniably yes! If you look at executive pay at non-profits with a similar amount of responsibility, I'd say 120k is quite modest indeed. $10,000 a month is not modest if you compare that to other regular clergy (unless it's the Billy Grahams). So are they CEOs of a corporation working for "executive pay"? Is that really how church members should view them? That just feels wrong, IMO But this was discussed already. I think it just gets to what was the main thing that upset some members. Edited January 30, 2017 by JulieM
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, Calm said: The pay stub disproved those claims, not proved. Well I meant the opposite. I dont' think the pay stubs prove they have to pay rent/mortgage, or that they pay tithing.
rongo Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well I meant the opposite. I dont' think the pay stubs prove they have to pay rent/mortgage, or that they pay tithing. I assume that those not in an apartment for health reasons own their homes (and therefore don't have a mortgage or other housing payment). And if there were a mortgage, one could pay it off pretty quickly making $120,000 a year. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JulieM said: $10,000 a month is not modest if you compare that to other regular clergy (unless it's the Billy Grahams). So are they CEOs of a corporation working for "executive pay"? Is that really how church members should view them? That just feels wrong, IMO But they aren't regular clergy are they? In addition to being the spiritual head of a 15 million member (5 million active) church, they are in charge of a corporation that oversees the management of a lot of resources. Regular clergy (in charge of one congregation) BTW receive a salary of around $90,000. And if you think 120k is standard executive pay, you are wrong. The CEO of the red cross for comparison makes over $500k as a comparison point. Edited January 30, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding 2
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 47 minutes ago, JulieM said: Yes, iirc at least for Pres. Eyring (tithing) and their living allowance (parsonage is included (again, iirc). Parsonage was included in his expenses and thus he would have had to pay that...your post is a little confusing so I am repeating myself, though I am assuming we are saying the same thing. edit: may be wrong, may have misunderstood what Danzo said Edited January 30, 2017 by Calm
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I wish they put it with such qualifiers, sure. But as I've seen it, in each case, they claim it's modest amount of money, not comparing to what they feel they should be making. Weren't you paying attention 30 years ago in general conference ? From lds.org: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/questions-and-answers?lang=eng Quote I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people. 1
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well I meant the opposite. I dont' think the pay stubs prove they have to pay rent/mortgage, or that they pay tithing. They may not "have to" pay anything, they may not accept the money at all or they may take that and everything else the Church is willing to give them...or something in between. One pay stub only shows what happens in one case, which was he paid tithing and he paid rent/mortgage (parsonage) and he accepted so much ($90,000 iirc) as pay. He could not have claimed the parsonage on his taxes if someone else had paid for it. At best we can assume that apostles are not told to not pay tithing on their living allowance unlike missionary presidents, another reason we should not assume similar benefits. I highly doubt any of the apostles would pay tithing if instructed not to. Danzo had some specifics on what is and isn't allowed to be claimed and what such claims there were meant. I don't remember any other documentation given in all the speculation outside the original leak.
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 20 minutes ago, rongo said: I assume that those not in an apartment for health reasons own their homes (and therefore don't have a mortgage or other housing payment). And if there were a mortgage, one could pay it off pretty quickly making $120,000 a year. That would depend on the cost of the home and other expenses. There are a lot of assumptions going into an ability to quickly pay it off. If a GA is called from outside the SL area, why would you assume they owned their home unless they were past the most common 30 year mortgage?
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Weren't you paying attention 30 years ago in general conference ? From lds.org: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/questions-and-answers?lang=eng Hey, if that's the only message we've gotten, then great. But sadly, that's not always been the message. Quote In our day, General Authorities of the Church give up their livelihoods to serve full-time, so they receive a modest living allowance—enough for them to support themselves and their families. ...is more the type of message that has been given. But I grant, you have a point. Pres. Hinckley's message was the best representative of reality. 1
JulieM Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: But they aren't regular clergy are they? Are you saying they spend more time than other clergy or ministers leading and serving their members? I disagree as I have family members who are leaders who spend full time plus many overtime hours serving and they do live very modestly and meagerly. Edited January 30, 2017 by JulieM
stemelbow Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, JulieM said: Are you saying they spend more time than other clergy or ministers leading and serving their members? I disagree as I have family members who are leaders who spend full time plus serving and do live very modestly and meagerly. I think you raise an excellent point. It's either compare them to executives of other corporations or compare them to religious leaders. Which is it? The comparison really breaks to a point for each comparison. They work as executives in most ways. And they seem to claim the title of ministers too. Compare them to one and they make more, compare them to another and they get away with claiming to live modestly. having cake and eating, I guess.
Recommended Posts