The Great Fast Offering Myth

[Bunny]

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.

Opponent? Debate? You guys have really weird bishopric meetings.

[Mortal Man]

You guys have really weird bishopric meetings.

Weird people make for weird meetings.

At any rate, the funds are not pooled...

The money IS controlled on a ward level...

And your Social Security taxes are all deposited into your own personal account with your own personal name on it, which no one but you is allowed to touch until such time when you will receive every last dime back with interest.

The funds are most definitely pooled. If you insist that they are not and that the money "stays in the ward," then please explain to our humble parishioners how our current system is any different from a (completely hypothetical) system in which the funds "do not stay in the ward." Also please explain exactly how the ward retains exclusive control of donations.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Weird people make for weird meetings.

And your Social Security taxes are all deposited into your own personal account with your own personal name on it, which no one but you is allowed to touch until such time when you will receive every last dime back with interest.

The only differnce is that the fast offering fund wont be banckrupt by 2017.

[maklelan]

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".

I don't think it's quite like that. The funds aren't pooled. The funds stay (conceptually) separated into different accounts which do not overflow into each other on a level not controlled by the wards. The wards don't go ask the Stake for the money when they want it. They cut the checks because the funds are under their account number with the Stake. The Stake doesn't just call up a bishop and tell him they had to use his funds so he doesn't have any left. The Stake can ask for help here and there, but it doesn't have the prerogative to just pilfer a ward's account whenever it needs it. The ward maintains discretion of the funds even if the books are kept with the Stake. The story shared about increasing fast offerings so they could help other wards out should indicate the bishop is the one administering these funds at the request of the Stake. The members, while not understanding the intricacies of the bookkeeping are in no way inaccurate to say the funds stay within the ward. In addition, elsewhere in the world, the funds don't even leave the ward's books.

[cinepro]

I don't think it's quite like that. The funds aren't pooled. The funds stay (conceptually) separated into different accounts which do not overflow into each other on a level not controlled by the wards. The wards don't go ask the Stake for the money when they want it. They cut the checks because the funds are under their account number with the Stake.

I stand corrected.

[mfbukowski]

Weird people make for weird meetings.

And your Social Security taxes are all deposited into your own personal account with your own personal name on it, which no one but you is allowed to touch until such time when you will receive every last dime back with interest.

The funds are most definitely pooled. If you insist that they are not and that the money "stays in the ward," then please explain to our humble parishioners how our current system is any different from a (completely hypothetical) system in which the funds "do not stay in the ward." Also please explain exactly how the ward retains exclusive control of donations.

I already have. Read my posts. I don't know how you can see it otherwise- the analogy with Social Security is just plain dumb. No comparison.

The ward contributes $11,581.78. That 's what the balance is in that fund until it is reduced by the exact amount of every expenditure and increased by every donation. (Unless they run a negative, and then it is subsidized by the stake or Salt Lake. If there are surpluses, they are transferred to where they are needed once per year. What should happen to them? Let the rich wards get richer and the poor wards starve?

You're all concerned about the money "staying in the ward" but what happens with the negative balances- should they stay there too?

You want the way it could be different? Easy. You write a donation check, it goes to SLC into a general fast offering fund and the ward has no fund, no balances, no negative, no positive. It just goes to SLC. The ward writes a check to pay a light bill, you transmit to SLC the amount, and they cover the check.

It would actually be easier if the money did NOT stay in the ward, but there would be less accountability. No discussions between the stake and the ward about how negative or positive the ward's fund was, no accounting, no checks written to the stake for excess contributions, no worried bishops about the balance, no announcements to increase the fast offerings. Much easier if you were correct. But the problem would be no accountability. Every bishop would have a bottomless fund to write as many welfare checks as he wanted with no checks and balances. No nosey stake "interfering" with my nice little slush fund. That's how it would be if the money did NOT "stay in the ward".

Gee, I wish you were right, but unfortunately you are not.

[Mortal Man]

I already have. Read my posts. I don't know how you can see it otherwise- the analogy with Social Security is just plain dumb. No comparison.

The SS analogy is perfectly valid. The only essential difference being that one is solvent whereas the other is not (as MRSR pointed out).

The ward contributes $11,581.78. That's what the balance is in that fund until it is reduced by the exact amount of every expenditure and increased by every donation. (Unless they run a negative, and then it is subsidized by the stake or Salt Lake. If there are surpluses, they are transferred to where they are needed once per year. What should happen to them? Let the rich wards get richer and the poor wards starve?

You're all concerned about the money "staying in the ward" but what happens with the negative balances- should they stay there too?

This applies to the Other and Budget categories, not the FO category.

You want the way it could be different? Easy. You write a donation check, it goes to SLC into a general fast offering fund and the ward has no fund, no balances, no negative, no positive. It just goes to SLC. The ward writes a check to pay a light bill, you transmit to SLC the amount, and they cover the check.

Bingo. That is how the FO category works.

It would actually be easier if the money did NOT stay in the ward,

It is easier.

but there would be less accountability. No discussions between the stake and the ward about how negative or positive the ward's fund was, no accounting,

The numbers are still reported to facilitate discussions. It is all accounted for in MLS.

no checks written to the stake for excess contributions, no worried bishops about the balance,

Other: Yes

Budget: Yes

FO: No

no announcements to increase the fast offerings.

That's up to you.

Much easier if you were correct.

Yup. See above.

But the problem would be no accountability.

Of course there's accountability. Every check must be approved and verified.

Every bishop would have a bottomless fund to write as many welfare checks as he wanted with no checks and balances.

Is that a double pun? And yes, you can go on a spending binge until you get fired. In fact, the exact words of one of our former (very generous) bishops was, "If they don't like it, they can fire me."

No nosey stake "interfering" with my nice little slush fund. That's how it would be if the money did NOT "stay in the ward".

No, a slush fund would be an account that only you knew about; i.e., an incognito ward account. If Salt Lake found out about it, it would lose its slushiness.

Gee, I wish you were right, but unfortunately you are not.

Once again, you are conflating the Other, Budget Allowance and Fast Offering categories. They work differently.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The SS analogy is perfectly valid. The only essential difference being that one is solvent whereas the other is not (as MRSR pointed out).

This applies to the Other and Budget categories, not the FO category.

Bingo. That is how the FO category works.

It is easier.

The numbers are still reported to facilitate discussions. It is all accounted for in MLS.

Other: Yes

Budget: Yes

FO: No

That's up to you.

Yup. See above.

Of course there's accountability. Every check must be approved and verified.

Is that a double pun? And yes, you can go on a spending binge until you get fired. In fact, the exact words of one of our former (very generous) bishops was, "If they don't like it, they can fire me."

No, a slush fund would be an account that only you knew about; i.e., an incognito ward account. If Salt Lake found out about it, it would lose its slushiness.

Once again, you are conflating the Other, Budget Allowance and Fast Offering categories. They work differently.

You know what I am getting out of all of this, it seems that if MM was running things he would do it differently. That is cool. I cannot comment on what happens in your ward. However in my ward, at least I think, that everybody is fairly aware that the funds dont physically stay in the ward, however I am unaware of any policies were if money is needed it is not found. That is why I do not have a problem with any of this stuff.

BTW I am glad I could contribute in a small amount, even when I seem to always find a some what humours approach.

[Mortal Man]

I imagine it's bad form to quote here from the Church Handbook of Instructions; so instead, I'll quote from a Welfare Training Manual (which quotes the CHoI, he he).

"When expenditures will exceed donations, counsel with the stake president beforehand to ensure that correct principles are being applied."

That's it. The only tie between local donations and expenditures is a suggestion to discuss it with the SP. The bishop does not have to balance or reconcile fast offering funds. The ward is solely a transfer institution, not a repository.

Now I am thoroughly sick of this topic. Unfortunately, my cataclysmic battle with the second counselor is scheduled for tonight. I wish to thank mfbukowski for his most excellent service as sparring partner in preparation for this fight. Wish me luck. Unless, of course, you're not on my side; in which case, just stay the heck out of it.

[TrespassersW]

And your Social Security taxes are all deposited into your own personal account with your own personal name on it, which no one but you is allowed to touch until such time when you will receive every last dime back with interest.

Actually, if we're going to get nit-picky, this isn't true. The bank doesn't keep those dollars sitting around waiting for you to come pick them up again. The bank invests that money in whatever way it sees fit.

When you deposit money, the bank credits your account with X dollars, which is really just a number on a computer that allows you to draw money later on.

Where are the physical dollars? Who knows? Who cares? That just isn't the way society works any more.

The budget that the wards draw from is quite a bit like an account. It may not be an actual bank account, but the principle is the same. It's simply a bit more flexible in allowing surpluses to flow to where they are most needed.

If it's wrong to say "Every fast offering dollar stays in the ward," then it would be just as wrong to say "Every dollar I deposit in the bank stays there."

But neither statement is wrong. Because we're talking about credits and balances, not paper bills. And I think the vast majority of people understand this. And I have trouble believing that many people really care.

Failure to get sidetracked into a lengthy explanation of all the nitty-gritty details at every opportunity isn't deception. Good communication focuses on what is relevant. And in this case, the relevant portion is that the dollar amount donated by a ward is used to help members in that ward. No one was confused by this. No one was deceived. And I really doubt that anyone really cared which bank account the monies were kept in.

[mfbukowski]

The SS analogy is perfectly valid. The only essential difference being that one is solvent whereas the other is not (as MRSR pointed out).

This applies to the Other and Budget categories, not the FO category.

Bingo. That is how the FO category works.

It is easier.

The numbers are still reported to facilitate discussions. It is all accounted for in MLS.

Other: Yes

Budget: Yes

FO: No

That's up to you.

Yup. See above.

Of course there's accountability. Every check must be approved and verified.

Is that a double pun? And yes, you can go on a spending binge until you get fired. In fact, the exact words of one of our former (very generous) bishops was, "If they don't like it, they can fire me."

No, a slush fund would be an account that only you knew about; i.e., an incognito ward account. If Salt Lake found out about it, it would lose its slushiness.

Once again, you are conflating the Other, Budget Allowance and Fast Offering categories. They work differently.

There is no sense in arguing this. As I said before, I am a bishop and I am the one who has the discussions with the stake president when we run negative. The results are displayed monthly on the statements. If you don't believe me, there is nothing I can do about it. Maybe you can discuss it with my stake president for me next year, and you can tell him how it works.

[mfbukowski]

"When expenditures will exceed donations, counsel with the stake president beforehand to ensure that correct principles are being applied."

That's it. The only tie between local donations and expenditures is a suggestion to discuss it with the SP. The bishop does not have to balance or reconcile fast offering funds. The ward is solely a transfer institution, not a repository.

And how precisely is the bishop to know that the expenditures have exceeded donations unless the balance was known? How is he to report this to the stake president if he doesn't know? You are contradicting yourself. No the bishop does not have to balance anything, including the "checkbook". That is all done by computer. Of course the ward is not a repository. But that does not mean that it does not have a record of credits vs debits so that the bishop knows exactly how much has been contributed vs what the expenses have been. You are back to the safe in the basement idea again. The money in the "other" category is transferred to SLC just as the fast offerings are- where do you think it is kept?

In point of fact, the training manual you have quoted is obsolete because it talks about paper statements being mailed to the bishop's house- and that has been discontinued. The statements are now sent electronically through MLS.

[Bsix]

I have never believed that fast offerings stay at a ward level.

I don't care one way or another.

I love to pay fast offerings because I know that the funds are used to help those in need.

I trust my leaders (local and general) to use those fund in a wise manner.

I know that the local leaders are hyper-focused on meeting the needs of members touched by the poor economy.

Regards,

Six

[Mortal Man]

And how precisely is the bishop to know that the expenditures have exceeded donations unless the balance was known? How is he to report this to the stake president if he doesn't know? You are contradicting yourself.

I have never said that donations and expenditures are not made known to the bishop. I have said that it is misleading to speak of a fast offering "balance."

Once again, here is how it works:

1) All donations, regardless of type, are transferred to Salt Lake and put into accounts managed by church headquarters.

2) Donations to the Other category go into a pass through account in the ward's name which earns interest. This is no different than the ward having its own account at the local bank. This is the only account that has to be balanced. Donations to this account are not tax deductable.

3) Tithing donations go into a general fund from which stakes receive a spending authorization once per year. The amounts are determined by average sacrament meeting attendance in the wards that comprise each stake. The stakes then give each of their wards a budget for the year. The wards must stay within their budgets or talk their SP into giving them more money.

4) Fast offering donations go into a general fund from which they are distributed worldwide on an as-needed basis.

I can't speak for your ward but I can tell you the situation in our ward. We have some good-hearted yet simple-minded people as far as finances are concerned. They know that in order for the youth to go to camp the ward must pay for it. If no fundraisers are held, Billy's parents are broke and no one else steps up to the plate, then Billy can't go to scout camp. They are correct in this view because the scout camp money in the Other category comes from the ward, stays in the ward, is spent by the ward and (typically) no one outside the ward contributes to it. If you ask them to donate to Friends of Scouting they say, "Will this help Billy go to camp?" "No, it goes into the general BSA fund." "Oh, well I'm kinda tapped right now and I'd rather my donation go directly to Billy."

The problem in our ward is that most people think that fast offering assistance works like scout camp. They see that Mr. Jones just lost his job along with his medical insurance and that a tornado demolished his house sending his whole family to the hospital. They say to themselves, "This is going to bankrupt our dear bishop. I've got to increase my donations." They also say (to paraphrase our HPGL), "We are more secure as a ward if we make our FO donations because we'll have more stored up against future hardship." They seem to have become attached to the idea of a ward "nest egg." Their testimonies reveal an underlying satisfaction in the notion that their nest egg contributions and/or Mr. Jones donations aren't being diverted to Zimbabwe.

Now before criticizing these members for their parochial mentality, or insisting that they wouldn't be hurt to know the truth, ask yourself this. Are you happy to know that your SS taxes go directly into the general fund and are immediately spent to mask the size of the federal budget? Or would you prefer that they "stay in your own account"?

[mfbukowski]

I have never said that donations and expenditures are not made known to the bishop. I have said that it is misleading to speak of a fast offering "balance."...

Now before criticizing these members for their parochial mentality, or insisting that they wouldn't be hurt to know the truth, ask yourself this. Are you happy to know that your SS taxes go directly into the general fund and are immediately spent to mask the size of the federal budget? Or would you prefer that they "stay in your own account"?

But the SS analogy is a false analogy, and it seems that you have changed what you are saying about the FO fund. First about the fund, then we I'll get around to the analogy.

It is not misleading to speak of a "balance". In accounting when you subtract debits from credits, the figure is called a "balance", which balance this training shows that the bishop must know:

From the training manual which you quoted: (Emphasis Added)

Stake Presidents Prepare bishops to properly administer fast-offering assistance by doing the following:

1. Train bishops using the videocassette Caring for the Needy (32294) and the

accompanying study guide (32294).

2. Interview bishops regularly using the attached Stake President's Checklist (pink

sheet).

3. Ensure that the information on the attached Bishops Training Outline (yellow

sheet) is presented and followed up in stake bishops' welfare council meetings

during 2001-2002.

4. Review fast-offering expenditures on the stake financial summary each month...

So the balance is known and reviewed monthly. That is because each ward has its own balance, and the stake has its balance, and the SP is to review this on the statement monthly. He is not reviewing the balance of the general fund in Salt Lake, he is reviewing the respective balances of the wards in the stake and their relationship to the stake balance.

The stake president should train and counsel bishops to follow approved procedures in administering

Church welfare. (Please see Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, 14-17. He does so by ensuring

that:....

Regular personal interviews with each bishop include a review of fast-offering assistance and the

teaching of welfare principles that the bishop needs to consider in making decisions....

So there are regular meetings in which the SP reviews "what's left" in the ward's FO fund

When expenditures will exceed donations, counsel with the stake president beforehand to

ensure that correct principles are being applied.

..which balance the bishop needs to know BEFORE he goes "negative", and if he does go "negative he needs to review that with the SP.

As far as the accounting on Social Security, you are making a false analogy because an individual's SS cannot go "negative". There is no balance in the fund of an individual which can be exceeded. You don't get a maximum lifetime benefit of x dollars after which you are "negative" and the government is now paying you out of what someone else has contributed, which is precisely what does happen in the case of FO funds. Yes, you get paid out of the general fund, and yes, at some point you probably have exceeded your contributions, but you don't know when that is. You don't know that on September 27, 2004 you exceeded your whole lifetime contribution, and now your money is coming out of Sally Smith's contrilbution.

But with FO, you would know that on a date certain, you would have exceeded your "balance" (that word again) and that the money is coming either out of the stake fund or the church general FO funds. With the government there isn't even such a thing as a "Social Security" general fund, much less the equivalent of a more local fund like the stake fund. So there's no comparison between the two.

But this whole silly thing started with the idea that the funds "stay in the ward", and I still say that as long as there is a balance which is known to the bishop, changes monthly, is reviewed with the SP, and which the bishop is required to know about if and when it goes negative, when the negative balance is covered by the stake at first with a known amount, clearly there is nothing wrong with the explanation that the money "stays in the ward". Yes the fund is a pass-through entity, but with a carefully monitored balance it is practically no different than having a personal checking account with overdraft protection.

[Mortal Man]

Yes the fund is a pass-through entity, but with a carefully monitored balance it is practically no different than having a personal checking account with overdraft protection.

In order to get us out of this dizzying spiral, I will agree to this assertion with the following caveats:

1) The "carefully monitored balance," concocted by subtracting expenditures from donations, is a purely hypothetical quantity unrelated to any existing dollars in any actual account.

2) The "personal checking account" is likewise a purely imaginary repository.

3) The "overdraft protection" is completely unlimited with no requirement whatsoever that overcharges ever be repaid.

4) The suppositious balance in the mythological account is a Markovian variable.

In regards to how SS really works, I recommend the relevant chapter in Thomas Woods' book. 33 Questions