Membership councils

[Ether93]

Good day All

 

I have been a faithful member since 1998, I have served in various callings, served a honorable mission, married in the temple and continue to study and shape my life after Christ. I was called as bishop in 2023, during this time, much good was accomplished as ward. However, I needed financial assistance and essentially I requested help from the Stake President and he approved my help for 2 or 3 months, it was 100% my mistake that I needed further assistance and unfortunately did not get an updated letter of approval from him. I take full accountability that it was not the correct administrative procedure. When these payments were processed, they were to my home bond directly, never to me, and it was always my counselors that did it all. Besides the approval letter, I ensured that everything was above board, there was nothing hidden or deceitful. 

The Stake president then called for audits, area and stake audits found no theft of tithes and offerings and no other financial misdeeds. Infact the only issue was that I approved help for myself without approval from the SP. I strongly felt that this was an administrative mistake rather then embezzlement, nevertheless it was labelled as embezzlement of church funds. For almost 7 months I sat on the stand week in and week out as a non functioning bishop, then finally was called in for a stake council in July 2025. 

I plead my case that yes what happened was incorrect but that i felt it was admin rather than theft because if the letter of approval was updated there would not be this problem, the presidency did not agree and they put me on a formal membership restriction for 1 year and was told to pay back the money. During this period nobody from the stake presidency ministered to me in any way whatsoever, there was no meetings held monthly too. 

Now this July, I expected a called for a new council but it never came, till I reached out to the stake and then immediately a meeting was setup between the SP and me to determine if I was ready for the council. 

He confidently said to me that the restrictions can be lifted but the fact that the money has not been paid back would mean that although restrictions will be lifted I cannot serve in certain callings. I was happy with this because my wife is giving birth in 4 weeks and all I want is to reenter the temple, partake of the sacrament and bless my baby. I said that paying the money back will be done as I want to be in full membership again. He said that by September I would be surely okay to bless the baby. Ofcourse I explained why I had not been able to pay the money which was due to me being the sole breadwinner and that my wife being pregnant meant that I needed to pay R35000.00 for the process as we do not have medical insurance. 

I attended the council yesterday and was met with extreme judgement, the entire presidency interrogated me as if I were a convicted criminal, nevermind that I never missed a Sunday at church, or that I refused to stop being faithful. All they cared about was that the money was not paid. A counselor even said to  me that when i benefited from the money it was because I was scared to lose my house but when it comes to paying back the money, I do not give the Lord the same seriousness...even though I had thrice explained my circumstance. 

Many other negative things were said but the conclusion was that the restrictions continue indefinitely till the money is paid, they would review after 3 or 6 months. 

I have been around for long enough and am a diligent student of the gospel, I made it my life's work to know the gospel indepth and apply teachings of modern prophets and apostles, to me this is not the way Christ would judge. I even shared the parable of the impossible debt and hoped that would help them. 

If I am wrong and their decision is right, please let me know, but I need some guidance. I feel that they should remove the restrictions and keep the annotation till I do pay. Given my personal circumstances that should be something they understand, show compassion and extend mercy. I am not unwilling, I am currently unable. 

I worry to imagine how they would have treated the lady taken in adultery.

[The Nehor]

The woman taken in adultery would be treated more leniently.

If it were just an administrative error the Stake President could have retroactively approved the payment. I suspect that the Stake President would not have signed off on those additional payments. This is not just an administrative error. If it were it would already have been resolved. I also question how much you got from this if you cannot pay it back. How many months did you stay on this unauthorized welfare plan? Stake Presidents are usually all over situations where a Bishop or one of their family is receiving money. I find it hard to believe that not telling the Stake President you were still receiving assistance for months was somehow an innocent mistake.

The Stake is following policy. In cases of embezzlement of Church funds you cannot come back into full fellowship until all of the money is repaid. They can’t extend the mercy you want while following church policy.

I get that you were in a tight spot but this probably could have been avoided by keeping the Stake President involved. I would start saving and get that money to pay it off.

[manol]

@Ether93, you're not the first person to make a mistake that has unforseen and far-reaching consequences.  The question is, how do you move forward from where you are now? 

Changing people's minds is probably not a realistic option.  They are seeing through their lens and it is different from your lens.  For instance, they may feel obligated to protect the Church from something they perceive as misuse of financial authority, and they may be taking an uncompassionate stance in hopes of preventing it from happening again.  [Edit:  I see now that @The Nehor has posted with knowledge of what official Church policy is.]

Maybe you can appreciate that they have not chosen to involve the police, and that they are giving you time to pay the money back. 

Can you make small payments?  That might shift the situation from you being at odds with the Church leaders, to you working with the Church leaders towards a common goal.  A little bit of progress is quite a bit different from zero progress because it's a change of trajectory.

God is far more forgiving than men are, in my opinion.  I suggest you not allow your peace to be dependent on outcomes even as you navigate this situation in the best way you can.  Let your peace come from having a real and present relationship with, and connection with, God. 

Edited Monday at 05:05 PM by manol

[Calm]

I am actually quite surprised the Church even allows a bishop or his counselors to be involved in approving welfare for anyone in the bishopric. I would have thought they would either do that at the stake level or have another bishop involved.  That way if there are any accidental errors, it is not as likely to be seen as not so accidental.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am actually quite surprised the Church even allows a bishop or his counselors to be involved in approving welfare for anyone in the bishopric. I would have thought they would either do that at the stake level or have another bishop involved.  That way if there are any accidental errors, it is not as likely to be seen as not so accidental.

They can do the preliminary approvals but it then gets kicked to the Stake President. The Stake President should be approving each of those payments and working with the Bishop for them.

If this story is real I suspect that there is more going on. It could be that they don’t use electronic signatures where this congregation is (possible but that is rare) or they might have just written out paper checks which is also very rare and would look INCREDIBLY shady or they used a dummy name in the welfare recipient field so that it didn’t get kicked to the Stake Presidency.

The Stake President also doesn’t call for audits. They just happen.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Ether93 said:

nevertheless it was labelled as embezzlement of church funds. For almost 7 months I sat on the stand week in and week out as a non functioning bishop, then finally was called in for a stake council in July 2025. 

This sounds strange as well because I have heard only of immediate release of a bishop in any case where there was embezzlement.  I could see it if there was an open case perhaps if there was no one else to function as a bishop as there is no requirement of I understand correctly for immediate release if judgment is pending, but if there were counselors and the accused wasn’t even functioning as a bishop, why would they keep them as a bishop?

Not insisting this did not happen, just thinking the story is incomplete with likely multiple unusual circumstances being described.  

Edited Monday at 07:15 PM by Calm

[longview]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not insisting this did not happen, just thinking the story is incomplete with likely multiple unusual circumstances being described.

I'm getting the feeling that the Stake President should have been paying closer attention to the situation and being more proactive in "shepherding" and ministering for the bishop. The SP probably was being sloppy and the bishop should have been wiser about getting entangled.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

I'm getting the feeling that the Stake President should have been paying closer attention to the situation and being more proactive in "shepherding" and ministering for the bishop. The SP probably was being sloppy and the bishop should have been wiser about getting entangled.

But the poster (bishop) followed procedure correctly the first time, so it’s understandable why the SP would assume he would follow it the second time.  Does the SP check all welfare transactions that go through the ward?

 

Edited yesterday at 12:36 AM by Calm

[longview]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But the poster (bishop) followed procedure correctly the first time, so it’s understandable why the SP would assume he would follow it the second time.  Does the SP check all welfare transactions that go through the ward?

 

But that procedure was sloppy. Shouldn't the SP finance clerk handle the paperwork from start to finish? That way, the bishop will not drift into impropriety?

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, longview said:

But that procedure was sloppy. Shouldn't the SP finance clerk handle the paperwork from start to finish? That way, the bishop will not drift into impropriety?

This would have been processed online. The Stake Presidency would have to sign off on it if the Bishop’s name (or his wife or child or parent or sibling) was the welfare recipient.

There is very little paperwork now. You take photos of receipts and upload them.

That the stake knew nothing about what was going on makes me think they weren’t putting the Bishop’s name on this.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

But that procedure was sloppy. Shouldn't the SP finance clerk handle the paperwork from start to finish? That way, the bishop will not drift into impropriety?

Guidelines say a bishop can approve an order under the SP’s direction.  The problem as I see it with the info given is the SP was only aware of the original order, after that the bishop did it on his own initiative, which isn’t necessarily dishonest, but does seem foolish as is he thought about it, he would have seen it was unreasonable and against guidelines to assume any further payments past the stated time period were okay without official approval, but stress lowers our ability to critique our own decisions in my opinion. 

Quote

At times a bishop or members of his immediate or extended family who live in the ward may need Church assistance. When this occurs, the bishop reviews the needs and the proposed assistance with the stake president. The stake president’s written approval is required before a bishop may use fast offerings or approve a bishop’s order for himself or his family.

If fast-offering funds are used, the stake president reviews the bills and other expenses before authorizing payment. The bishop may not approve a payment for himself or his family.

When a stake president or members of his immediate or extended family who live in his ward need assistance, he contacts the bishop. The bishop follows the same principles and guidelines of Church assistance that he would for any other member. However, once the bishop has approved the request, the stake president must submit it to the Area Presidency. The stake president and bishop await written approval from a member of the Area Presidency before proceeding with the payment or order. (If a district president needs assistance, approval is sought from the mission president rather than the Area Presidency.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/22-providing-for-temporal-needs?lang=eng

The bolded part makes it pretty clear imo the poster followed correct procedure the first time that covered 2/3 months, but he essentially approved it himself and had the counselor sign off on it for any other times (how many?).  Unless I misunderstand what the poster meant, this would be like a member not going back to the bishop, but just telling the counselor to make the payment, which would be obviously not acceptable, even if all the forms were filled out correctly.

Quote

However, I needed financial assistance and essentially I requested help from the Stake President and he approved my help for 2 or 3 months, it was 100% my mistake that I needed further assistance and unfortunately did not get an updated letter of approval from him. I take full accountability that it was not the correct administrative procedure. When these payments were processed, they were to my home bond directly, never to me, and it was always my counselors that did it all. Besides the approval letter, I ensured that everything was above board, there was nothing hidden or deceitful. 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:52 AM by Calm

[Calm]

How many signatures are required for financial payments?  My husband (former clerk) says two, but it’s been awhile since he has been a clerk and procedures may have changes if only done online now.

If two, can a counselor typically sign these and if so, can it typically be two counselors?

Edited yesterday at 04:14 AM by Calm

[Calm]

20 hours ago, Ether93 said:

home bond

Ether93….are you not in the US?  Would this be what I would call a mortgage or something else?

That and the R for the currency suggests South Africa (I can delete this info if you are uncomfortable with it, but you might want to change the money to US dollars and “home bond” to “mortgage” if so).

If you are outside the US and Canada or other dense LDS populations, that could explain why they just didn’t get a new bishop (smaller membership pool) and possibly why the investigation took so long.  And maybe they don’t have the automatic audits as often?  It makes sense to call for one to ensure Ether93 is not held accountable for anything incorrectly.

I should have said first off “welcome to the board and congrats on the new baby”, but also hope you can get both this and your financial difficulties resolved soon.  It must be very stressful having a new baby with this hanging over your head.  Is it your first?

Edited yesterday at 06:35 AM by Calm

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

How many signatures are required for financial payments?  My husband (former clerk) says two, but it’s been awhile since he has been a clerk and procedures may have changes if only done online now.

If two, can a counselor typically sign these and if so, can it typically be two counselors?

Two, and it is usually an electronic signature or sign-off. A sign off requires at least one member of the bishopric and a clerk can provide the other (or it can be another member of the bishopric). Two counselors can sign off but that is not the norm. The norm in my experience is the Bishop and one clerk (or a counselor). No one can sign off on a reimbursement or welfare assistance payment if they or their immediate family is the recipient. While not required it is usually best practice to avoid having the Bishop getting reimbursements for activities and the like if reasonably possible.

Note that in all cases the Bishop does have to sign off as well eventually. Two others can send a payment but the Bishop has to acknowledge it. It is usually best to have the Bishop provide one of the sign offs to avoid the extra step. If two people sign off they are supposed to have the Bishop’s permission in advance. This is allowed so the Bishop can give verbal approval over the phone or via email if they aren’t available.

So two counselors can do it but that is usually rare and the payment will go forward but the Bishop has to sign off after the fact.

If a payment is going to Bishop or family the Bishop can’t be one of the two original signers. The Bishop still signs off on it as well. Then the Stake President (or one of his counselors) has to sign off on it.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Guidelines say a bishop can approve an order under the SP’s direction.  The problem as I see it with the info given is the SP was only aware of the original order, after that the bishop did it on his own initiative, which isn’t necessarily dishonest, but does seem foolish as is he thought about it, he would have seen it was unreasonable and against guidelines to assume any further payments past the stated time period were okay without official approval, but stress lowers our ability to critique our own decisions in my opinion. 

The Stake President should be giving approval for each individual payment if the recipient is the Bishop (or his close family). A blanket “three months” could be approved verbally but the Stake should still be signing off on each one. This doesn’t pass the smell test.

My guess is that someone in the local unit was putting a different recipient down to avoid overview, probably the Bishop. Then the Bishop was telling the other person signing off that they had Stake approval without getting it and if the Bishop put in the payment they could finagle it so it wouldn’t show up on the Stake’s radar. Then in the audit the whole thing was easily caught.

[manol]

@Ether93, I'm just muddling through this life, hoping to be "part of the solution" more often than "part of the problem".  So this will all just be opinion, informed by my own limited and highly questionable experience, and highly unprofessional musings.  I make no claim that any of this will be applicable to anyone besides me, and it's just a snapshot of where I am at this point in time anyway, so none of this is "carved in stone" for me either:

It seems to me that, however unpleasant they may be at the time, trials are among the things that give me experience and are ultimately for my good (D&C 122:27; see also D&C 90:24 and Romans 8:28). Perhaps my weaknesses are actually opportunities for growth (Ether 12:27). Trials can show me where my behaviors have created or contributed to the situation, and often they put a spotlight on a counter-productive behavior pattern that has been showing up in my life over and over again. Trials offer me the opportunity to react with fear, anger, victimhood, self-hatred, despair, or something else. I aspire to react with “something else”.

Practical steps have to be taken and that may include accepting changes I'd rather not accept, but practical steps alone may not get at the root problem. For myself at least, I think my behaviors arise largely from my beliefs, and therefore counter-productive behaviors arise largely from often very deep-seated counter-productive beliefs and/or default modes. I think we can pray for insight and expect to receive it. And even if we never know the underlying cause of a counter-productive belief or default mode, I think we can deliberately choose (and begin to incorporate) productive beliefs that, over time, may even result in productive default modes.

So – purely hypothetically of course! - suppose avoidance is my counter-productive behavior pattern that keeps showing up, presumably arising from a deep-seated counter-productive belief. So what I need is, a new belief that will “get me over the hump” of using avoidance in order to self-soothe. I can prayerfully request to be shown a new and corrective belief which I can consciously and deliberately choose and begin to internalize through consistent use. Suppose what shows up is for me to state “doing this [the thing I'd normally avoid] is where I go to feel love” whenever I'm tempted to indulge in avoidance of whatever it is that needs to be done. Maybe that sounds corny, but at least I don't have to tell anyone about it.  And in my limited experience it's not the words themselves, but rather the feeling invoked, that can and does make the difference. I'm not sure the words are even necessary, but for now they (or some variation or evolution thereof) seem to help. Hypothetically, of course.

Again, I have no idea whether any of this might be of any use in the context of this thread; posting just in case it might.

@BlueDreams and @MustardSeed, I welcome any correction either of you might offer.

Edited 23 hours ago by manol

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Two, and it is usually an electronic signature or sign-off. A sign off requires at least one member of the bishopric and a clerk can provide the other (or it can be another member of the bishopric). Two counselors can sign off but that is not the norm. The norm in my experience is the Bishop and one clerk (or a counselor). No one can sign off on a reimbursement or welfare assistance payment if they or their immediate family is the recipient. While not required it is usually best practice to avoid having the Bishop getting reimbursements for activities and the like if reasonably possible.

Note that in all cases the Bishop does have to sign off as well eventually. Two others can send a payment but the Bishop has to acknowledge it. It is usually best to have the Bishop provide one of the sign offs to avoid the extra step. If two people sign off they are supposed to have the Bishop’s permission in advance. This is allowed so the Bishop can give verbal approval over the phone or via email if they aren’t available.

So two counselors can do it but that is usually rare and the payment will go forward but the Bishop has to sign off after the fact.

If a payment is going to Bishop or family the Bishop can’t be one of the two original signers. The Bishop still signs off on it as well. Then the Stake President (or one of his counselors) has to sign off on it.

The Stake President should be giving approval for each individual payment if the recipient is the Bishop (or his close family). A blanket “three months” could be approved verbally but the Stake should still be signing off on each one. This doesn’t pass the smell test.

My guess is that someone in the local unit was putting a different recipient down to avoid overview, probably the Bishop. Then the Bishop was telling the other person signing off that they had Stake approval without getting it and if the Bishop put in the payment they could finagle it so it wouldn’t show up on the Stake’s radar. Then in the audit the whole thing was easily caught.

Not being in the US or Canada, I wonder if there is a different procedure.