Johnnie Cake Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 On 1/28/2017 at 11:12 AM, cdowis said: I feel that we would all agree that this Board has a responsibility to demonstrate and maintain respect for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Board Guidelines are designed to show respectful discussions. For example, discussion of temple content are prohibited. Although not directly related, I feel that the Board should forbid discussions of confidential information that was ILLEGALLY taken from the church. These leaks are specifically designed to breed contempt for the apostles and prophets of the Lord, and the Restore Church. This material was stolen from the church and discussion of their contents should be banned from this forum. Any comments, observations? Current thread has been locked until moderators deliberate. Just listened to the Radio West podcast episode on the subject of the leaks and the efficacy and impact of these leaks while at the gym today. I came away thinking that while the product of subterfuge and most likely theft of proprietary information...transparency at the end of the day is a good thing for everyone involved...including the church 1
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 27 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. Which is probably a good reason not to release the financial info because many won't consider the context, but just look at the dollar count. While a term like "modest" can apply to all contexts accurately (if used properly).
Calm Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. It is very hard to avoid speculation even to point out where speculation goes too far.
rongo Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: 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. I'm pretty generous with toilet paper. That's one thing you don't want to run out of. And, like you said, my teenage daughter burns through it a lot faster than the three boys combined in their bathroom . . . But you also get families that want 10 bags of granola, so that the kids can eat it when they get home from school. And they feel ill-used when you try to get them to live more frugally and healthy, or to prepare more meals that make leftovers than just quick meals that take no preparation. 1
bluebell Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 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. Ok, found the quote by Jan Shipps- "Religious historian Jan Shipps, who is not a Latter-day Saint but has studied Mormonism extensively, was astonished at how relatively low Eyring's living allowance was — even for one more than 15 years ago. Many university presidents and even some faculty make much more, said Shipps, who taught American religious history in Indiana for years. "Compared to their pay, this is small potatoes." A Methodist pastor of a middle-class congregation in the Midwest, she said, "is paid a $138,000 base salary plus a parsonage allowance." 1
bluebell Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, rongo said: I'm pretty generous with toilet paper. That's one thing you don't want to run out of. And, like you said, my teenage daughter burns through it a lot faster than the three boys combined in their bathroom . . . But you also get families that want 10 bags of granola, so that the kids can eat it when they get home from school. And they feel ill-used when you try to get them to live more frugally and healthy, or to prepare more meals that make leftovers than just quick meals that take no preparation. I was a RS president in a poor ward. I hear ya.
JulieM Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 43 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 do without pay, but not comparable to what General Authorities do, which is to administer an international organization. No, full time clergy for other faiths put in more hours than a Bishop or SP in service (at least the ones I personally know).. My family member puts in full time during the week plus many evenings and weekends too (not to diminish how much Bishoos and SPs spend doing their calling, but they usually have other jobs or businesses they do full time). This minister of another faith (family member) makes enough to barely pay for an apartment for their family to live in. So you're right that it's not a good comparison. Edited January 30, 2017 by JulieM
JulieM Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: Ok, found the quote by Jan Shipps- "Religious historian Jan Shipps, who is not a Latter-day Saint but has studied Mormonism extensively, was astonished at how relatively low Eyring's living allowance was — even for one more than 15 years ago. Many university presidents and even some faculty make much more, said Shipps, who taught American religious history in Indiana for years. "Compared to their pay, this is small potatoes." A Methodist pastor of a middle-class congregation in the Midwest, she said, "is paid a $138,000 base salary plus a parsonage allowance." I'm sure some do make more. I know the ones I'm familiar with absolutely do not and they work more than full time in their ministry. I'm sure we could find examples to support both conditions.
Recommended Posts