The Great Fast Offering Myth

[William Schryver]

MM:

Contrary to popular opinion, the bishop does not have his own Fast Offering account, at least not in our ward.

How "popular" is this opinion? Apparently it is more popular in your neck of the woods than it is in mine. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in my stake who shares this "popular" opinion.

Not that it matters much. I'm not aware of anyone who cheerfully donates fast offerings who would be less inclined to do so if they thought their funds were ending up in a general fund that benefits members worldwide. In fact, I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks otherwise. It was just a few years ago when there was a request from headquarters for a special fast (and a corresponding temporary increase in fast offerings) in order to address the needs of some particular natural disaster (I don't recall which it was; probably Katrina or the tsunami). So here we have a request for the saints to temporarily increase their fast offering donations in order to meet a need for people far away, and not even members of the church. Does that not presume exactly the opposite of the thing you are suggesting?

BTW, this has to rank up there with the strangest and most petty criticisms I have ever seen leveled against the church. Talk about trying to pull a mote out of someone's eye ...

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm a bishop. I deal with welfare issues several times each week.

I see absolutely no problem here.

It's desirable for a ward to be self-sufficient, through fast offerings, for its welfare needs -- and, ideally, for it even to generate a surplus for the stake or for the Church at large.

I notice that one of the cynics here thinks this is just a lie to keep the sheeple paying. Oh well. That says more about him than it does about the Church.

I'm deeply grateful that I can help members of my ward who need psychiatric counseling, food, and occasional help with rent. How that somehow demonstrates that the Church is greedy eludes me altogether.

[Nofear]

I don't see any way to justify the statement that the money "stays in the ward." It does not "stay in the ward" in any important sense.

I would say that it "stays in the ward" in every important sense. Bishops in no sense view the fast offering budget as being drawn from a large pot. Bishops most certainly take into consideration their local contributions as a factor into how much they can distribute. If a ward is in a situation where fast offering allocations are expected to exceed the ward budget there is discussion and counsel with the stake president to make sure that the deficit scenario is appropriate and warranted (and the stake president can potentially restrict the bishop to his ward fast offering budget). A similar situation arises when a ward's fast offering donations exceed the ward's expenditures.

Not only is the criticism silly, it is quite simply wrong "in any important sense".

There have been several times when I have given the Bishop a check and asked that it go to help a specific family in our ward. What happens to the funds in situations like this?

Such requests are not to be made and the bishop is not to make any commitment that your fast offering donation will be allocated in such and such a way. The bishop is the sole arbiter when in comes to how is ward fast offering budget is to be used (with a few exceptions, such as when the fast offering budget is in deficit or fast offering expenditures for medical expenses would exceed a certain amount).

[sethpayne]

I'm deeply grateful that I can help members of my ward who need psychiatric counseling, food, and occasional help with rent. How that somehow demonstrates that the Church is greedy eludes me altogether.

Who claimed the Church is greedy?

Such requests are not to be made and the bishop is not to make any commitment that your fast offering donation will be allocated in such and such a way. The bishop is the sole arbiter when in comes to how is ward fast offering budget is to be used (with a few exceptions, such as when the fast offering budget is in deficit or fast offering expenditures for medical expenses would exceed a certain amount).

Thanks for the info. From now on I'll make sure the funds get to these families in another way so as not to put the Bishop in an awkward position. However, just to be clear: these were not fast offering donations.

[clairc829]

Thanks for the info. From now on I'll make sure the funds get to these families in another way so as not to put the Bishop in an awkward position. However, just to be clear: these were not fast offering donations.

If you want funds used in a specific way you should use the other category and list what you want done with it. If this is what you did the money should have gone to the family you wanted it to and it didn't put the Bishop in an awkward position. The other category of donations are not tax deductible, and act as a pass through account to be used as the donor specifies. (I was a finical clerk for 5 years and then Ward Clerk for the last 3 years)

Fast Offerings and Tithing donations are used at the Bishop or Church s discretion, and there should be no strings attached

Hope this helps, I think it is great you are willing to help others, my Grandfather didn't trust the church so he had a fund he maintained and used to help his neighbors when they were in need.

I think that is commendable that you give whatever method you chose to do it.

[ERayR]

I can never remember a time when the members of the ward were told that their FO funds remained in the ward. I can remember Bishops reporting to the ward that they had spent more in FO funds than the members donated and at other times Bishops have reported that the ward had contributed more than used in the ward and that the excess had been forwarded to SLC. This was in the days when each ward did have a local bank account. There are no local bank accounts now. Each local unit has a transfer account but no funds are held in the transfer account. Deposits are made and it is transferred.

I have never seen or heard of a Bishop telling his ward that all their FO donations remained in the ward.

[Daniel Peterson]

Who claimed the Church is greedy?

Perhaps JangoStango wasn't reflecting the common "PrayPayObey" meme about the LD$ "corporation" as I've encountered it (more times than I can count) from embittered apostates:

I'm not a bit surprised that the rationalization works: let them have a false belief if it helps them keep paying.

It isn't your place to correct their myths, Mortal Man. It's their own fault for not seeking out correct information.

But perhaps he was.

[JangoStango]

I reflect the apologetic rationalizations that obedience is more important than understanding, and the ignorant have only themselves to blame. I see no reason to drag "the Church" into this.

[sethpayne]

If you want funds used in a specific way you should use the other category and list what you want done with it. If this is what you did the money should have gone to the family you wanted it to and it didn't put the Bishop in an awkward position. The other category of donations are not tax deductible, and act as a pass through account to be used as the donor specifies. (I was a finical clerk for 5 years and then Ward Clerk for the last 3 years)

Fast Offerings and Tithing donations are used at the Bishop or Church s discretion, and there should be no strings attached

Hope this helps, I think it is great you are willing to help others, my Grandfather didn't trust the church so he had a fund he maintained and used to help his neighbors when they were in need.

I think that is commendable that you give whatever method you chose to do it.

Well, I generally trust Church leaders with money which is donated. Its good to know the proper process and procedures. The Church after all, is a big organization and it should be expected that a certain level of bureaucracy and oversight is both present and necessary.

It is nice to have a Bishop or an EQP you can approach when you know a certain individual is in need of something and be able to give through the organization of the Church.

[Honorentheos]

Well, I generally trust Church leaders with money which is donated. Its good to know the proper process and procedures. The Church after all, is a big organization and it should be expected that a certain level of bureaucracy and oversight is both present and necessary.

It is nice to have a Bishop or an EQP you can approach when you know a certain individual is in need of something and be able to give through the organization of the Church.

There are a lot of interesting aspects to this. "Other" accounts on the church computer can be complicated things. It would be interesting if there are any stake-level financial clerks who may be able to offer some more insight into how these sorts of funds may be best distributed.

For example, writing it down on the slip, even in the other category, means if it is a one-time only thing such as you wishing to help a specific family out, does the clerk have to create a single new "other:Bruers" or something like that which then gets stuck in the envelop like all of the other funds. Then the bishop would be writing a check to give out to that family? Then close the catagory...because anything on the forms has to be accounted for at the end of the day.

Seems complicated. Why not just steal their quad and hide the money in it? It would probably make someone else's day a little better (clerks and bishoprics like to spend some of their Sunday's with their families too), and you would get the privilege of helping someone else out.

Now if multiple people are contributing to give a family a Christmas or something, that may be a different case.

Again, it would be interesting to get a stake-level view since they do the audits and see what works and what makes for a long, long day...

[Honorentheos]

Perhaps JangoStango wasn't reflecting the common "PrayPayObey" meme about the LD$ "corporation" as I've encountered it (more times than I can count) from embittered apostates:

But perhaps he was.

As a critic, I would rather complain about tithing if I were one to care how other's spend their money. Fat, bald BYU professor's donut funds out of my family's income? I think not.

[Daniel Peterson]

I reflect the apologetic rationalizations that obedience is more important than understanding, and the ignorant have only themselves to blame. I see no reason to drag "the Church" into this.

Whatever.

[blooit]

This reminds me of a hypothetical conversation that some father once imagined himself having with a son he never actually had:

"Daddy - do you get to keep the money you earn?"

"Yes son, except for taxes and a few other things that come out of my check before I get it."

"So where do you keep the dollar bills?"

"Well son, I don't actually carry most of the cash. I deposit it in the bank and then write checks or use a debit card."

"But I thought you said you get to keep the money you earn."

"I do, it's just that things are done differently now than they used to be. The bank holds my money until I need it or request it."

"But why couldn't you be honest and tell me that you actually get to keep almost NONE of the money you earn. Why did you feel the need to lie to me?"

"Well son, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to you, but I guess TECHNICALLY I do turn the money over to the bank, but it's still mine until I spend it."

"Oh, so now you're telling me you not only lied about giving your money away to the bank, but then you give it away whenever you spend it too. So really, you keep almost NONE of the money you earn. I've lost all trust in you dad. Why couldn't you just tell me the truth."

<sigh> "Well, if that's all it took, I'm not sure I ever really had it."

[mfbukowski]

If you want funds used in a specific way you should use the other category and list what you want done with it. If this is what you did the money should have gone to the family you wanted it to and it didn't put the Bishop in an awkward position. The other category of donations are not tax deductible, and act as a pass through account to be used as the donor specifies. (I was a finical clerk for 5 years and then Ward Clerk for the last 3 years)

Fast Offerings and Tithing donations are used at the Bishop or Church s discretion, and there should be no strings attached

Hope this helps, I think it is great you are willing to help others, my Grandfather didn't trust the church so he had a fund he maintained and used to help his neighbors when they were in need.

I think that is commendable that you give whatever method you chose to do it.

This is correct. You could use the "Other" category.

[Stargazer]

There are a lot of interesting aspects to this. "Other" accounts on the church computer can be complicated things. It would be interesting if there are any stake-level financial clerks who may be able to offer some more insight into how these sorts of funds may be best distributed.

For example, writing it down on the slip, even in the other category, means if it is a one-time only thing such as you wishing to help a specific family out, does the clerk have to create a single new "other:Bruers" or something like that which then gets stuck in the envelop like all of the other funds. Then the bishop would be writing a check to give out to that family? Then close the catagory...because anything on the forms has to be accounted for at the end of the day.

Seems complicated. Why not just steal their quad and hide the money in it? It would probably make someone else's day a little better (clerks and bishoprics like to spend some of their Sunday's with their families too), and you would get the privilege of helping someone else out.

Now if multiple people are contributing to give a family a Christmas or something, that may be a different case.

Again, it would be interesting to get a stake-level view since they do the audits and see what works and what makes for a long, long day...

Years ago our ward got a bequest from someone's will when that person passed away. The terms of the bequest were that the funds, several thousand dollars, were donated for the use of the ward as the Bishop saw fit. The money of course went into the ward's account at SLC and two successive bishops used the funds for various otherwise "off budget" items over the years, until SLC told the bishop would he kindly get off the stick and use the darned money for something, as SLC was getting tired of carrying the odd funds on the books. So the bishop spent the last of it for a complete collection of church artwork that got hung all over the building. I think there was a small amount left over even after this, and the Bishop just transferred it into the FO account.

For some reason this seemed like a good place to mention this.

[mbh26]

D&C 19

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my nameâ??s glory.

You were in on this thread. It's a perfect example of the Lord not telling the complete truth to get a better result.

[Jason]

This reminds me of a hypothetical conversation that some father once imagined himself having with a son he never actually had:

Excellent summation of this thread.

[Alf O'Mega]

Whatever my feelings about the truth of the claims of Mormonism, I have always felt that the bishops I've known have deserved as much slack as I could possibly cut them. (I feel similarly indulgent toward the local missionaries. I let a lot of earnest zeal roll right off my back.) The job of bishop is hard enough in the best of circumstances. I'm guessing that even though Mortal Man believes his bishop was being misleading, he would agree that it was unintentional and not the slightest bit nefarious, even though he thinks it worth correcting.

There must be bad men who have been called as bishops out there somewhere, but so far I've never met one.

[Doctor Steuss]

[â?¦]

I find it hard to believe that those "teary-eyed" members would lose their fast offering testimony if they found out the money goes to SLC.

[â?¦]

I agree. Anecdote time:

Many moons ago, when the economy was just starting to head in the downward direction, I was still attending church sporadically. In F&T Meeting (of my parentâ??s ward), the bishop got up and talked about the hard times that were falling upon people across the country (and particularly in our city). He then talked about how this had resulted in a substantial decrease in fast offerings in other wards. He finished up by asking those of my parentâ??s ward that could to increase their fast offerings to help compensate for the decrease in contributions elsewhere across the valley, so that other wards would have substantial funds to help those in need.

The members (who knew there was a slim chance the Fast Offerings would be used in their ward) answered the Bishopâ??s call â?? to such an extent that he was barely able to get out â??thank youâ? the following week as he was again emotionally overwhelmed when reflecting upon the outpour of generosity.

I do think it a little quirky though that it seems to be a thing of importance to some in the OPâ??s ward (and, I imagine in every ward) to think that their funds wonâ??t go to help anyone they donâ??t know.

[cinepro]

This reminds me of a hypothetical conversation that some father once imagined himself having with a son he never actually had:

I'm not sure that is the situation being discussed here.

Here's how I see it.

I have planned a trip to Disneyland for my three kids, Sam, Tate and Gloria. In preparation for the trip, they have each saved up their allowance and chore money; Sam has $30, Tate $20, and Gloria $15. Being young kids, they decide it would be prudent to have me "hold" the money for them, and then when they want something, I'll just buy it with my credit card and reduce the "amount" they have by the commensurate amount. And my wife and I have budgeted $250 for spending money out of the family budget on the trip for us. So the total in the spending "account" is $315.

In this case, each child could honestly say they "have" their money, and that it is "their" money.

But suppose as the trip progresses, I notice that there are some things that Gloria really, really wants, but can't buy with her $15, so my wife and allow her to spend more than the $15 that she contributed (because it's for a really good purpose). Sam is more frugal, and just doesn't care about Disneyland chotchkies, so he doesn't spend any of his money. And Tate uses all of his $20, but no more. Then, after the vacation, Sam asks for his $30 that he didn't spend, but we discover that we had used up all the money over the course of the vacation! We have to tell him that his surplus money was used elsewhere, and it's gone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how Fast Offerings work. They should be considered pooled at the Church level, since it isn't until the Church runs out of Fast Offering money that the Ward runs out of Fast Offering money. And if the Church ran out of Fast Offering money, each individual Ward would be out as well. But not until then. We might be like Sam and not use any of our contribution, or like Tate and use just enough, or like Gloria and use more.

It seemed to me that the Ward Members in the OP were viewing it more like the first scenario, where it gets pooled, but the accounting is still separate, and any surplus remains with the Ward for future use, and any deficit would need to be "repaid". Since the numbers aren't actually reported, I would even venture a guess that most Church members assume their Ward contributes a surplus to the pool.

Now, let me be clear. I am in no way arguing against the value of Fast Offerings, or the wisdom of Bishops in distributing the funds. I think it is an important program, and fully support it with contributions, and driving deacons around to collect them.

The issue raised in the OP was one of classification. And as long as the Fast Offerings are pooled (either at the Stake or Church level), and Bishop's Fast Offering payments come from pooled funds, it just isn't accurate to say the money "stays in the Ward". For me, the critical economic distinction is that if the money was controlled on a Ward level, then the Bishop would incur a debt when he used pooled funds over the amount contributed by the Ward; the Ward would overdraw it's Fast Offerings from the pool, and be under an obligation to pay them back.

Sure, you can say "Ward members pay Fast Offerings, and the Bishop gives Ward members Fast Offering Money", and to the degree that the payouts are less than the contributions, it could be said that it is a Ward fund. But unless the Bishop is penalized (or at least accountable) for deficit funds, it just isn't practical to say what was reported in the OP. They should just say that "Fast Offerings are used for the benefit of people in the Ward, the Stake, and Church members all over the world".

[Scott Lloyd]

I understand exactly why this would annoy some people. Ward members are not morons and Bishops should not assume that we can't understand this concept. I think he should not have said "Yes, every penny of the money stays in the ward" because that is not accurate. A more accurate thing to say would have been, "This money is for the use of our ward members who are in need and every penny of it will be made available to us when (and if) we need it." It's not that big of a deal, and I understand that the Bishop probably didn't want to put the teacher on the spot, but a little bit of clarification probably would have been good. Bishops do carry a very heavy load though, and this small discrepancy was probably not on the top of his list of things to think about.

I agree with Katherine the Great here that the bishop could and should have been more precise in communicating the facts accurately.

The potential problem, as I see it, is that some members may get the false impression that whatever fast offering money that is contributed in the ward over and above what is dispersed to the needy is maintained as surplus funds in some account somewhere for that ward alone to draw upon as needed. If one has the impression that the ward as a whole is fairly well off, one may get the false impression that it is OK to decrease his fast offerings accordingly.

I also question why someone should get teary-eyed and sentimental over the notion that all of the fast offering funds stay in the ward. Are we not one great global body of brothers and sisters? What nobility is there in being so territorial over the money that is contributed in fast offerings? Is Brother A more deserving of the help than Brother B just because Brother A lives down the street from me while Brother B lives on another continent? I'm not sure that encouraging such an attitude is a good thing. Conceivably, there may be a better use for that money than making the payments on the multi-million-dollar mansion of my hypothetical neighbor who over-extended himself.

[ERayR]

If you want funds used in a specific way you should use the other category and list what you want done with it. If this is what you did the money should have gone to the family you wanted it to and it didn't put the Bishop in an awkward position. The other category of donations are not tax deductible, and act as a pass through account to be used as the donor specifies. (I was a finical clerk for 5 years and then Ward Clerk for the last 3 years)

Fast Offerings and Tithing donations are used at the Bishop or Church s discretion, and there should be no strings attached

Hope this helps, I think it is great you are willing to help others, my Grandfather didn't trust the church so he had a fund he maintained and used to help his neighbors when they were in need.

I think that is commendable that you give whatever method you chose to do it.

Charitable donations are only tax deductable if given to 501 c 3 charities with no strings attached. If restrictions are placed on the gift they have not relinquished control and the IRS does not consider this a completed gift, therefore it is not deductible.

[Mortal Man]

Whatever my feelings about the truth of the claims of Mormonism, I have always felt that the bishops I've known have deserved as much slack as I could possibly cut them. (I feel similarly indulgent toward the local missionaries. I let a lot of earnest zeal roll right off my back.) The job of bishop is hard enough in the best of circumstances. I'm guessing that even though Mortal Man believes his bishop was being misleading, he would agree that it was unintentional and not the slightest bit nefarious, even though he thinks it worth correcting.

There must be bad men who have been called as bishops out there somewhere, but so far I've never met one.

Your guess is correct. I get along very well with my bishop and both counselors, which is how I get away with such flagrant insubordination. Our bishop is a great man but he has no clue how the finances work. He simply gave the HPGL the answer he wanted. The correct answer, "I don't know," would have been embarrassing in that situation. The bishop is like a submarine captain in that he always knows what he's doing, even when he doesn't.

The counselor however, knows exactly how it all works, including all the details of the banking system. He owns his own contracting business for which he does the payroll and accounting. I've seen him schmooze his way through numerous audits because he knows more than the stake auditors. So even though he was absent from the meetings where the problem came up, and had nothing to do with creating the problem in the first place, I am nonetheless holding him personally responsible for this latest fiasco (mostly because he's always tweaking me about various things in an effort to provoke a response.) The fact that he was my trainer makes him a worthy opponent. On this issue however, he has become as Ra's al Ghul, and I'm afraid I will have to put him down.

I'm fairly certain the topic will rise again at the next bishopric meeting. He thinks he won the debate last time around so now he'll try to rub it in. I already know how the meeting will go. When I walk in he'll say something like,

"Hey MM, the bishop is running low on chickens. Can you drop a few off at his house tonight?"

Then I'll say something like,

"You know, you're getting way too predictable these days. We need to get you a new writer."

Then the rhetoric will escalate until the bishop gets irritated and calls on whichever one of us he is most annoyed with to say the prayer.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Whatever.

This sums up my feelings of this thread. THe money is used for poeple in our ward and if there is a surplus it went to SLC.

Oh boy that is such a big deal to leave the church over. Take about magical thinking.

[mfbukowski]

It seemed to me that the Ward Members in the OP were viewing it more like the first scenario, where it gets pooled, but the accounting is still separate, and any surplus remains with the Ward for future use, and any deficit would need to be "repaid". Since the numbers aren't actually reported, I would even venture a guess that most Church members assume their Ward contributes a surplus to the pool.

Now, let me be clear. I am in no way arguing against the value of Fast Offerings, or the wisdom of Bishops in distributing the funds. I think it is an important program, and fully support it with contributions, and driving deacons around to collect them.

The issue raised in the OP was one of classification. And as long as the Fast Offerings are pooled (either at the Stake or Church level), and Bishop's Fast Offering payments come from pooled funds, it just isn't accurate to say the money "stays in the Ward". For me, the critical economic distinction is that if the money was controlled on a Ward level, then the Bishop would incur a debt when he used pooled funds over the amount contributed by the Ward; the Ward would overdraw it's Fast Offerings from the pool, and be under an obligation to pay them back.

I am not really sure what you are saying or how accurate your analogy is. It depends on if you as dad in Disneyland are supposed to be the stake or the church.

At any rate, the funds are not pooled, except in the sense that each member's funds go into the ward fund. The money IS controlled on a ward level, but there is no pay-back to the stake for deficits. If a ward is not meeting its obligations, how could it possibly pay it back? Sell the chapel? It doesn't work that way.

If you were the dad in disneyland as the one with deep pockets, you would subsidize the over-spending of the child who did with your funds so that the other children would still have their "own money". Then the analogy would be accurate. In a given stake, 3rd wards deficits are not paid out of 4th ward, they are paid out of funds the stake independently has on their own, and then ultimately should those funds run "dry" they would be replenished out of funds from SLC.

So to extend the analogy, if one of the disneyland kids over spent incredibly and you allowed it,("you" being the stake in this instance) and ultimately bankrupted you, your dad (SLC) would step in and fund the difference, but each child would still have their "own money".