She hadn't heard the news, so I asked her to guess how much GAs get paid. "Nothing, they are serving the Lord" was her response.

I then said nope it's $120k per year.

She then said that must be made up by anti-mormons. I said it was pretty solid and showed her the news reports.

Her next response was "that's not fair." Then a few minutes later she came back and said "well I guess they do have to have money to live".

I think it did cause a fair amount of cognitive dissonance.

They need money to live? So do all the members struggling to make ends meet, living near or below the poverty line, who are still on the hook for 10% plus fast offerings.

The TBM rationale for rich guys being called as GAs is that they've made their $$$ during their careers, and because they're already set they can concentrate on "serving the lord." Therefore, they *shouldn't* be needing this extra money.

Contrast this with the South American peasant who sold his gold dental fillings to James Faust for temple construction; Faust then KEPT THE FILLINGS, bragged about it, and even showed them off as some kind of trophies.

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/portoalegre/

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1344386

Yes, I immediately thought of Faust and the gold fillings when I heard this leak of GA living allowance. I hope more Mormons quit sacrificing for these charlatans. The average Mormon needs to concentrate on their families and personal needs first - not support a lavish lifestyle for these guys.

All of the GAs made a Faustian bargain. I wonder if Stan looks like Peter Fonda.

I might consider converting if prophet had a flaming skull.

logged out all day Wrote:

> Contrast this with the South American peasant who
> sold his gold dental fillings to James Faust for
> temple construction; Faust then KEPT THE FILLINGS,
> bragged about it, and even showed them off as some
> kind of trophies.

The German word "Faust" means "fist."

How fitting this name for a GA poobah with a fist-full of gold teeth from the mouths of penurious peasants.

Lame braggadocio James.

Hi, paulk. I'm not understanding the context of your tbm wife's response "That's not fair." Was she referring to it not being fair that somebody had a copy of the "living allowance" check stub and posted it on the internet for the whole world to see? OR, was she saying it's not fair that these guys get $10k/month (not a bad salary) when they should get either more or less??? At any rate, the salary-versus-living-allowance semantic battle rages on while the "brethren" rake in rather handsome "allowances" (tax-free since it is not 'income' + no tithing). I'd take that deal all day long. Simply not having to pay tithing on that "allowance" saves each of them $12k/year or $1k/month, and I imagine that a lot of lds families living in tight circumstances would certainly like to be in that situation.
Thanks, bro. Peace. -edz

"That's not fair" was reference to the amount being too high. She grew up in a single income home where her father was a school teacher. They were generous with their tithes and offerings. So $120k seems like a lot. I'm pretty sure it bothers her more than she admits.

hahaha that was quick! From anti mormon to "well they need it" in an instant.

TBM's are quick to use the "anti-Mormon" excuse for something (facts) that causes them discomfort. Many years ago when my son came home from his mission, he said he thought the 1990's changes in the temple ceremony was a falsehood spread by anti-Mormons. It was an example of how this lie (that everything negative about TSCC is from anti's) is used by TBM's to dismiss facts that don't agree with their testimonies.

I hope she thinks about it long and hard.

Your TBM wife will switch from defending the position that "there's no way Mormon Apostles get paid that's anti Mormon lies" to "of course Mormon Apostles get paid, the Church has never hidden that fact" seamlessly.

This is one of several reasons that I no longer donate.
another is that the recipients of the donations refuse to reveal where and how the money is spent.

Granted; once donated it is their money. However, I am unwilling to give if I don't know where it is going.

Being that secretive about it would lead one to believe that there may be a certain amount of skulduggery going on in the ranks.

So in my opinion men who would treat their co-members in this manner are men without honor, of dubious ancestry, and questionable parenthood.

I think you brought up a good point that mormons don't think about. "men who would treat their co-members in this manner"

We are all supposed to be members of Christ's church (if you believe in that sort of thing), all parts of the body of Christ performing different functions, etc. In a sense we are all equal.

But, with mormonism and some other churches there is a definite hierarchy. the lowly nursery worker is NOT equal to a GA in respect or afforded dignity. Being a high rank in the LDS church is seen as a reward itself, they deserve better things than the rest of us. And if they decide to treat us like peasants and themselves as royalty so be it.

Let's see...two quorums of 70's who are considered GAs (140).
12 "apostles" (12)
3 in the "first presidency" (3)

That's 155 people (at least) getting (at least) $120k a year.

That's $18.6 million per year (at a minimum) going to "unpaid lay clergy."

How does your wife feel about that?

Aren't members sopposed to pay tithes on their "increase," not necessarily just their earned "income?"

Go ahead. Tell the bish that that $10k you didn't tithe was an "living allowance" from your company or loved one, so should not be tithed.

*supposed

Your point is correct. If the paid "clergy" that claim not to be clergy were serious about the blessings of tithing, they would tithe.

I was a bookkeeper for a small church. The Reverend was paid roughly $36,000 per year. We reported this to the IRS as a "Living Allowance" so he did not have to pay income taxes on that amount. But of course, he payed tithing in the amount of $3600 per year!

recovered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your point is correct.


...if not my spelling and grammar. Apologies - stylus, small phone, rushing.


Not tithing on allowances - "Do as we say, not as we do, for we don't believe in the guilt we sell to members." It's so much more than not abiding by the rules they preach. It is telling on themselves, or a very loaded and fired "silver bullet," IMHO. They neither want nor need "the lord's blessings."

And in what fashion is this not ammo for anyone, TBM and apostates, alike? How do these non-tithe-paying men hold TRs? For at least some of them, consciously without conscience, I assume.

The site posted above in the Deseret News said James Faust said, "....that he had purchased some of the gold fillings for more than the market price to share with congregations the nature of the sacrifice made by these members."

Now....wasn't he just so wonderful to let the world know without a doubt that he had purchased some of the fillings for "MORE" than the market price; just had to pat himself on the back for this. Isn't he so very humble?

Makes me sick!

These guys are thieves who still from the poor to give to the rich....the rich being none other than themselves.

I hope with all my heart that this piece of information about the Elite's salaries helps to bring your wife around to the truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2017 09:48PM by presleynfactsrock.

My wife sent me this in response to the stipend issue. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/01/living

I'm confused. This article seems to be about pluralism (which is good), but I don't see the connection between it and stipends. Is it the bit on the end about how pluralism causes people to distinguish core beliefs from less central ones (and how much general authorities are compensated falls under the later)?

Sorry ... somehow I got the link wrong. This is the link to Daniel Peterson's response:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/01/living-stipends-general-authorities.html

I feel like that's mostly just arguing why it isn't a problem that they receive a stipend, but besides the comparison to what they could be making in corporate America, it doesn't really address the amount. I think that's part of the trick: the living allowance is both simultaneously too much and too little depending on what the number is relative to. Compared to someone with similar credentials in a similar corporate position, yes, it is too little, and certainly compared to those megachurch pastors you see living in multimillion dollar mansions, it doesn't look like they're living surrounded by luxury (as though material luxury would be the only indicator that they were getting too much).

They're pretty much all old enough to be retired from their successful positions in life before their were called to the apostleship. I'm sure they managed their finances well in this time and are earning enough to live off their pensions, 401(k) and other savings, and social security. So relative to what they actually need to live, it suddenly seems too high.

Certainly, compared to most members of the church, this is too much to be considered a living allowance and nothing more. The median household income in Utah is just under $60,000/yr (and anyone who lives in Utah probably knows that it is really hard to make ends meet on this much money). If it were closer to this amount, it would feel more like a modest living allowance, but they are earning twice as much as the average Utah family just as their allowance (not counting again the retirement benefits and savings they are certainly able to use, royalties, tuition at BYU, and other benefits they likely get, let alone that they aren't raising their kids anymore, so that's one fewer expense). This becomes problematic since they have very strong opinions on what those members do with their money, particularly the impoverished ones. I just wish that before they told the story about the person choosing to pay their tithing instead of their rent, they put a picture up of their houses or their pay stubs, just for context.

Serving as a GA isn't really service if there's no sacrifice. It's a job with rock star perks. Only the little people sacrifice.

Peterson misses the point entirely (not surprisingly).
The "uproar" isn't over the fact that they received "stipends." Most people with any knowledge of the church knew they did already.
The "uproar" isn't over how much the "stipend" is, although that's a small part of it.

The "uproar" is over the fact that the church won't tell anyone how much the stipend is, and keeps it a secret, and claims to have an "unpaid clergy." It's about their deception and dishonesty, revealed once again by leaked documents.

A point which, of course, Dan never addresses in his apologetic nonsense (he starts to, then uses a non-sequitur and doesn't address it at all), which as usual simply calls people who are upset about the subject names like "embittered."

Dan, your church leaders are lying sacks of shit.
That's what the "uproar" is about.

Where could I find on the internet the picture of the stub referred to in an above comment in this thread?

i.e. "a copy of the "living allowance" check stub and posted it on the internet"
Where can I find that?

Its all good! Why?

Because if the wife is not already doing it when she breaks out the checkbook to pay tithing its going to come back full force. She will be muttering who knows what under her breath as her fingers begrudgingly finish the needed movements.

Now is the time to tell her what well to do men get in compensation while members are told over the pulpit and in church literature that they are to go without before NOT paying these men their due.

Have her read closely the text on the bottom of the tithing reciept.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2017 10:06AM by AmIDarkNow?.

AmIDarkNow? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Have her read closely the text on the bottom of
> the tithing reciept.

why didn't they just say F**k You on the bottom of the slip?



."Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated," it now reads on the bottom of the form, "all donations become the church's property and will be used at the church's sole discretion to further the church's overall mission."

"We feel a sacred obligation to make sure that tithing and other donations made to the church are used prudently and wisely," church spokesman Scott Trotter said. "The new language on the donation slips simply gives some flexibility to meet the changing needs of a growing, global faith as circumstances require."

I am amazed at the reflex of so many members, they are able to go from:

"it's an old lie"

to

"I always knew it and it's fine"

in the time it takes for them to look over the pay-stubs.

They have bee trained to have zero intellectual integrity and any ethics or morals have been long washed out of their brains.