Shut It Down!

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That makes the 3 to 4 times that that the GAs rake in seem all the more exorbitant, rather than modest. 

Not really.  $34,000 in the US is barely over the poverty line (it's under the poverty line for a family with 5 kids).  It doesn't really matter that it would be a king's ransom in some third world countries, American citizens have to live and function here.

[stemelbow]

Just now, bluebell said:

Not really.  $34,000 in the US is barely over the poverty line (it's under the poverty line for a family with 5 kids).  It doesn't really matter that it would be a king's ransom in some third world countries, American citizens have to live and function here.

I disagree.  The message of modest goes to all the world, not just US people.  4 times 34,000 is not barely over the poverty line. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, 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. It may be yet another playing out of the Girl and the Snake story.

 

Hey Scott, you list each of those quotes as if the following quote is in direct response to the one previous. For example this would make it look like I was saying to you "you may be right" when in fact I was responding directly to Calm. Therefore your post is inaccurate. Want to fix it for accuracy?

[bluebell]

1 hour 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). 

As i said before, if you take home more than $33,000 a year then you take home more than 99.9% of the world.  

Have you seen the picture of two people standing on opposite sides of a number on the floor, arguing about what the number is? One man demands that it's a 6 and the other that it's a 9.  Both are right, depending on who's perspective the number is being viewed from.

 

From my perspective right now, you're accusing someone of dishonesty for calling the number a 6.  It may be a 6 from your perspective, but sometimes you have to see things from more than your own point of view to see the whole picture.  

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by bluebell

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

As i said before, if you take home more than $33,000 a year then you take home more than 99.9% of the world.  

 

From my perspective, you're accusing someone of dishonesty for calling the number a 6.  It may be a 6 from your perspective, but sometimes you have to see things from more than your own point of view.

 

 

 

A message sent to saints around the world saying the money they take home is a modest amount, when to those listening around the world it is anything but modest seems dishonest.  I'm not sure what the number 6 has to do with any of this, but I've made my point.  Have fun.  Obviously we disagree and aren't going to find common ground here. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not really.  $34,000 in the US is barely over the poverty line (it's under the poverty line for a family with 5 kids).  It doesn't really matter that it would be a king's ransom in some third world countries, American citizens have to live and function here.

This boggles my mind. You're right ---- most people consider $34,000 to be poverty-level. It isn't, though (or shouldn't be).

It's like my wife says ---- apparently, our family is the only family left in the Church that "knows how to be poor."  We aren't poor, and we don't live poor, but in the eyes of the world (and most of the North American Church), we are --- primarily because she doesn't work. And because we live within our means and don't waste money. And because we pay our tithing.  

My former stake president says that it was nice to be able to tell people if they complained about me not giving them welfare that they were barking up the wrong tree complaining about or to me. He explained that I was counseling them to be frugal, and to jettison things in their life that they were going to need to in order to get there. And that I wasn't doing anything I wasn't asking them to do. 

I think that's one of the things that is disconcerting with talk of general authority pay. They are at times and stations in their life where their personal lifestyle expenses should be minimizes --- if they are living according to the Church's teachings on frugality. They ought to be able to live comfortably where they are at on far less than the salary they are given. Or so it would seem to many. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  The message of modest goes to all the world, not just US people.  4 times 34,000 is not barely over the poverty line. 

I know that.  What i'm saying is that what is a modest income in one country is not in another.  Modest is a subjective term, it depends on a lot of factors.   $14,000 a year would be extravagant in some places.  It's way way way below the poverty level in others.  

You can't take something that is subjective and attempt to define it rigidly (as you are trying to do).  It's unreasonable.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A message sent to saints around the world saying the money they take home is a modest amount, when to those listening around the world it is anything but modest seems dishonest.  I'm not sure what the number 6 has to do with any of this, but I've made my point.  Have fun.  Obviously we disagree and aren't going to find common ground here. 

Sorry, i had to edit it because the picture wouldn't post.  Re-reading my post will clarify.

[Rain]

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...

I keep hearing this about airline tickets and I'm a little confused.  Are you saying that buying an airline ticket for a vacation to visit family is a benefit or are you saying that if they go to South America for a speaking assignment it is a benefit.  If it is for vacation I am not sure where the idea that the church pays for it came from. If for the speaking assignment then it is not a benefit - it is a work tool.  

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hey Scott, you list each of those quotes as if the following quote is in direct response to the one previous. For example this would make it look like I was saying to you "you may be right" when in fact I was responding directly to Calm. Therefore your post is inaccurate. Want to fix it for accuracy?

Yes.

Thank you for calling it to my attention.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

This boggles my mind. You're right ---- most people consider $34,000 to be poverty-level. It isn't, though (or shouldn't be).

It's like my wife says ---- apparently, our family is the only family left in the Church that "knows how to be poor."  We aren't poor, and we don't live poor, but in the eyes of the world (and most of the North American Church), we are --- primarily because she doesn't work. And because we live within our means and don't waste money. And because we pay our tithing.  

My former stake president says that it was nice to be able to tell people if they complained about me not giving them welfare that they were barking up the wrong tree complaining about or to me. He explained that I was counseling them to be frugal, and to jettison things in their life that they were going to need to in order to get there. And that I wasn't doing anything I wasn't asking them to do. 

I think that's one of the things that is disconcerting with talk of general authority pay. They are at times and stations in their life where their personal lifestyle expenses should be minimizes --- if they are living according to the Church's teachings on frugality. They ought to be able to live comfortably where they are at on far less than the salary they are given. Or so it would seem to many. 

In my experience, judging what other people "ought to be doing with their money" is just a stepping stool that helps us climb onto our high horses.

  

 

[Calm]

Having looked at the pay stub (sigh, the need to be accurate won out), he was given three things in income...a child allowance (which seems to imply that in 2000 they were primary care givers to someone under 18 or disabled, perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong), a living allowance, and parsonage...thus the Church does pay the rent or mortgage on his home, but it is not over and above the at the time abt 90,000 a year and 120,000 in 3014.  Take home pay after deductions was $1300.  Don't know what all the deductions were for. He appears to be paying $300 in tithing off of that, so around $1000 a month.

$1000 a month to pay utilities, food for at least three people (himself, his wife, and the child), possibly travel expenses for his wife (according to a source I can't remember) if she goes with him at all, medical copays, etc.  Does that appear unreasonable to others?  Given what I have been spending for my mom (who was born three years earlier than Elder Eyring) in food, telephone, and other basic needs (she has good insurance and pays no rent or utilities, but has help cleaning), it seems reasonable.

Hopefully someone can correct the above if there are errors and explain deductions.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know that.  What i'm saying is that what is a modest income in one country is not in another.  Modest is a subjective term, it depends on a lot of factors.   $14,000 a year would be extravagant in some places.  It's way way way below the poverty level in others.  

You can't take something that is subjective and attempt to define it rigidly (as you are trying to do).  It's unreasonable.

Then we agree. That is the basis of my whole concern here.  They are talking to the world not just the us after all.  

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes 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 many overtime hours serving and they do live very modestly and meagerly. 

 

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

It's not a good comparison at all.

Clergy in non-LDS religious traditions typically lead churches or parishes or congregations or whatever that consist of a few hundred members -- comparable to what LDS bishops and stake presidents do without pay, but not comparable to what General Authorities do, which is to administer an international organization.

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In my experience, judging what other people "ought to be doing with their money" is just a stepping stool that helps us climb onto our high horses.

  

Unfortunately, some people have to do this as part of their calling . . .  It isn't fun, and people don't thank you for it.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

It's not a good comparison at all.

Clergy in non-LDS religious traditions typically lead churches or parishes or congregations or whatever that consist of a few hundred members -- comparable to what LDS bishops and stake presidents to without pay, but not comparable to what General Authorities do, which is to administer an international organization.

 

Sure.  I can see in a very real way they aren't comparable to what we in our culture call ministers.  In another way they aren't really corporate executives either.  

[Calm]

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...

From what I can tell from the pay stub, the insurance is considered a deduction from the stipend.  No guarantee I am reading it correctly though.  We have a tax accountant these days so it has been over 20 years since I itemized anything and it wasn't that complicated.

[bluebell]

1 hour 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 this was discussed already.  I think it just gets to what was the main thing that upset some members.

 

 

Jan Shipp (who isn't a member but reports on this kind of thing) said that it was modest compared to the clergy of other denominations.  She said that the average methodist minister with a moderate sized congregation makes $138,000 in the midwest (she was comparing this to Elder Eyring's earnings of $90,000 that leaked earlier).

I'll see if i can re-find the quote.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a good comparison at all.

Clergy in non-LDS religious traditions typically lead churches or parishes or congregations or whatever that consist of a few hundred members -- comparable to what LDS bishops and stake presidents to without pay, but not comparable to what General Authorities do, which is to administer an international organization.

Most of the administering of an international organization is done by paid Church Office Building employees. A very large part of general authorities' "job" is flying to various places, giving talks, contributing to committee meetings, and meeting with local leaders. Very little of this, if any at all, would result in personal expenses not paid for by the Church. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Then we agree. That is the basis of my whole concern here.  They are talking to the world not just the us after all.  

My post said that you were being unreasonable by trying to take something subjective like the word 'modest' and demanding a rigid definition that would apply to every situation and place in the world.  

What are we agreeing on?  (honest question, i'm confused).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 

As per their benefits?  As I recall they got medical dental, a pre-taxed retirement savings and a post fund retirement savings. 

These appear to me to be pulled out of the stipend given his net is around $1300, so not an added benefit over and above like many are speaking of.  Apostles probably don't get the retirement benefits that Seventies, who retire at 75? get.

He appears to be taking home $1300 a month to pay for living expenses (besides rent) of three people (him, wife, an unknown child indicated by a child allowance of $90 iirc...though I suppose this might be a tuition payment of grandchildren as some speculate, doesn't seem likely given the amount though).  Tithing (indicated amount written on check) brings that down to $1000 for two people if we assume the child allowance was for schooling, not care...if this includes utilities, telephones, auto expenses including insurance, medical copays and prescription costs, cleaning help (at 90 it's needed for almost all I have seen), I don't see much leftover.  

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Unfortunately, some people have to do this as part of their calling . . .  It isn't fun, and people don't thank you for it.

Oh, i agree.  But we all do it for way more than the people we have stewardship for, don't we.  And, even for the people we have stewardship over, it doesn't mean our judgements are right.

I remember one of the sisters in my ward talking about this subject in a RS lesson.  She was the RS president in a previous ward and said there was a family that had 5 daughters who had come to the Bishop for help with groceries.  The mother had put down what they needed and such to get from the bishop's storehouse and the bishop refused to approve the amount of toilet paper she put down.  He could not conceive of anyone needing that much toilet paper.  But then, he had 4 boys in his family, and no daughters.  The RS pres. had to pull the bishop aside (she had 4 daughters herself) and let the bishop know that a family of girls uses a lot more toilet paper than a family of boys does.  It's pretty obvious if you stop to think about it for a split second but the bishop had never had a reason to do so.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

From what I can tell from the pay stub, the insurance is considered a deduction from the stipend.  No guarantee I am reading it correctly though.  We have a tax accountant these days so it has been over 20 years since I itemized anything and it wasn't that complicated.

If they are on DMBA* as I am (and here I am enagaging in speculation, which I have railed against) the health insurance and other benefits, such as 401K and flexible spending accounts, are taken as a payroll deduction.

*DMBA is the benefits association for employees of the Church and Church-owned businesses.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

Most of the administering of an international organization is done by paid Church Office Building employees. A very large part of general authorities' "job" is flying to various places, giving talks, contributing to committee meetings, and meeting with local leaders. Very little of this, if any at all, would result in personal expenses not paid for by the Church. 

It's still very different from what a parish priest or a Protestant pastor would do.

And those Church Office Building employees you speak of function with direct or indirect oversight from the General Authorities of the Church. They are not off on some independent corporate sphere.

If you had a chance or get a chance to watch last week's Worldwide Missionary Broadcast, you'll see it's a good example. The Missionary Executive Council consists of two apostles, a General Authority Seventy, a member of the Presiding Bishopric, the Young Women general president and the managing director. Together, they oversee the Missionary Department and the missionary work throughout the Church.

Much of what General Authorities do is administrative, not just pastoral.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

Most of the administering of an international organization is done by paid Church Office Building employees. A very large part of general authorities' "job" is flying to various places, giving talks, contributing to committee meetings, and meeting with local leaders. Very little of this, if any at all, would result in personal expenses not paid for by the Church. 

But given the tendency towards meetings in our Church, it may add up to a much greater number of hours involved than clergy that has one congregation to deal with, especially if one that has multiple ministers such as a youth minister (a clergy person who does it all themselves and has a needy congregation may put in as many or more hours with much less support, there is a wide variety of service levels among clergy).

More time at work equals less time at home and thus less time available to do stuff like yard work and home care and even shopping and cooking for oneself...which means one goes without (not a wise thing in regard to home/yard care even if greatly simplified) or pay someone else to do it.  Age tends to limit ability and extends time as well.  My mom is Eyring's age and it takes her all day to do what I could in 2 hours or less in home/self care.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Calm