Recent Mormon leaks on Fast Offering Audit

[sjdawg]

Mormon Leaks recently issued a leak on 6 fast offerings expenditures questioned by General Authorities.   

 

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/06/06/mormonleaks-releases-six-checks-paid-with-fast-offering-funds-later-questioned-by-a-general-authority/

 

I like this leak for 2 reasons.

1. It shows the Bishop's have a reasonable degree of latitude in what assistance can be provided and that some Bishop's err on the side of generosity.

2. The LDS Church is doing its due diligence in monitoring expenses.

I appreciate the information being provided by Mormon Leaks.  Some of it shows the LDS Church is being managed responsibly as opposed to only publishing negative information.

[Duncan]

When our area had the Temple groundbreaking the SLC Visitor told the Stake to basically spend whatever was needed to purchase the supplies and contracts and so they did. The pickle though was when converting American Dosh to Canadian and this man with an accent called here for my stake clerk brother to work it out, kind of funny

[mfbukowski]

I was a stake auditor for a while and these appear to be flagrantly inappropriate and against all church policies.

In other words, whoever wrote these were asking for it.  Relatively huge amounts and you NEVER write a check directly to the member, but to the service provider.  And with these amounts, they would just pop out at you as if the entries were in neon lights.

I have seen SP's take bishops behind the woodshed but from a GA?  I would not want to be in his shoes.  Some of these seem to almost be criminal matters.

 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have seen SP's take bishops behind the woodshed but from a GA?  I would not want to be in his shoes.  Some of these seem to almost be criminal matters.

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...I was a TBM and one of my friends had recently been called to be a bishop. He asked me one day if I thought it was right that the previous bishop had been using fast offering money to make the mortgage payments for a young married couple who were students. I told him that situation didn't seem right but that he should talk to the stake president. He never talked about it again and I never asked him about it again.

[rchorse]

It's interesting that all the checks are from Davis County, Utah. Hopefully, that says more about the identity/location of the leaker than the nature of the checks. Otherwise, it sounds like the stake presidents and bishops in Davis County need some training.

As mfbukowski said, these are really pretty egregious violations of church policy. I can't even imagine the blowback from my stake president had I authorized paying $9k to put in someone's lawn with Fast Offering funds as a bishop. It's pretty hard to see any legitimate reason for that one.

[Alan]

Sometimes paying the funds directly to the member is unavoidable.

The church guidance says we shouldn't do that, but sometimes we have to. Also, we no longer write cheques, we can only do electronic transfers; this can be very awkward.

In my experience as a bishop, it is very difficult to establish beyond question the legitimacy of the request for assistance. We are just too busy on a typical Sunday. The demand on my time is such that it is often easier to write the cheque just to get the issue out of the way, as there is a long line of people waiting to see me and I've already been at church for 6 hours.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I like this leak for 2 reasons.

1. It shows the Bishop's have a reasonable degree of latitude in what assistance can be provided and that some Bishop's err on the side of generosity.

2. The LDS Church is doing its due diligence in monitoring expenses.

That is nice, but I knew it anyway.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Alan said:

Sometimes paying the funds directly to the member is unavoidable.

The church guidance says we shouldn't do that, but sometimes we have to. Also, we no longer write cheques, we can only do electronic transfers; this can be very awkward.

In my experience as a bishop, it is very difficult to establish beyond question the legitimacy of the request for assistance. We are just too busy on a typical Sunday. The demand on my time is such that it is often easier to write the cheque just to get the issue out of the way, as there is a long line of people waiting to see me and I've already been at church for 6 hours.

Only 6? It gets worse.

With bishopric and ward council meetings, the block, and then interviews after, that seems short.  Throw in a fireside, sometimes you get a 12 hour day, easy.  6 am to 6 pm, no problem 

Welcome to the club.

Edited June 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, Alan said:

Sometimes paying the funds directly to the member is unavoidable.

The church guidance says we shouldn't do that, but sometimes we have to. Also, we no longer write cheques, we can only do electronic transfers; this can be very awkward.

In my experience as a bishop, it is very difficult to establish beyond question the legitimacy of the request for assistance. We are just too busy on a typical Sunday. The demand on my time is such that it is often easier to write the cheque just to get the issue out of the way, as there is a long line of people waiting to see me and I've already been at church for 6 hours.

But members can still use checks right??  For older folks this would be sometimes hard to do any other way.

[Tacenda]

Sometimes it seems like the church shoots themselves in the foot when they say to pay tithing before the bills, and you will be blessed for it. Then the person later, is asking for help to pay the bills that they couldn't because they paid tithing first. Is this actually happening, or am I misconstruing?

ETA: A couple of these checks are from my stake.  

Edited June 7, 2017 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Alan said:

Sometimes paying the funds directly to the member is unavoidable.

True but in those cases there should be further documentation, receipts Etc to show that the member actually made the payments.

[halconero]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes it seems like the church shoots themselves in the foot when they say to pay tithing before the bills, and you will be blessed for it. Then the person later, is asking for help to pay the bills that they couldn't because they paid tithing first. Is this actually happening, or am I misconstruing? 

My father encouraged a couple to remain faithful tithe payers during their time of struggle, and then he covered their rent for a couple months along with food until they were back on their feet. Those two expenditures were more than what they contributed in tithing. It demonstrated both their commitment to remain faithful to their covenants but also the Church's willingness to help.

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes it seems like the church shoots themselves in the foot when they say to pay tithing before the bills, and you will be blessed for it. Then the person later, is asking for help to pay the bills that they couldn't because they paid tithing first. Is this actually happening, or am I misconstruing? 

The scriptures do not say that the blessing will be money in your bank account.  The Lord though, does promise in D&C 104:15 that he will "provide for [His] saints."  The fast offering funds, used properly, are one way of doing that.

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was a stake auditor for a while and these appear to be flagrantly inappropriate and against all church policies.

In other words, whoever wrote these were asking for it.  Relatively huge amounts and you NEVER write a check directly to the member, but to the service provider.  And with these amounts, they would just pop out at you as if the entries were in neon lights.

I have seen SP's take bishops behind the woodshed but from a GA?  I would not want to be in his shoes.  Some of these seem to almost be criminal matters.

Yup, while these may just have been errors by a new Bishop they kind of flash as meriting investigation for embezzlement. Every few years you hear of a case of someone getting arrested for embezzlement playing with funds in a ward.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was a stake auditor for a while and these appear to be flagrantly inappropriate and against all church policies.

In other words, whoever wrote these were asking for it.  Relatively huge amounts and you NEVER write a check directly to the member, but to the service provider.  And with these amounts, they would just pop out at you as if the entries were in neon lights.

I have seen SP's take bishops behind the woodshed but from a GA?  I would not want to be in his shoes.  Some of these seem to almost be criminal matters.

Too much trust in people, rather than proper procedures, which is why independent auditing is so important.  Someone always needs to be auditing the auditors and bookkeepers.  Back in the time of Pres Nathan Eldon Tanner, a woman who held a powerful position at Church HQ in Salt Lake City was found to have embezzeled several hundred thousand dollars.  I don't recall what was done to her, except to let her go.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Too much trust in people, rather than proper procedures, which is why independent auditing is so important.  Someone always needs to be auditing the auditors and bookkeepers.  Back in the time of Pres Nathan Eldon Tanner, a woman who held a powerful position at Church HQ in Salt Lake City was found to have embezzeled several hundred thousand dollars.  I don't recall what was done to her, except to let her go.

I have heard of a case in a neighboring stake, so that makes the account semi-legendary I suppose but I like it anyway

Supposedly there was some double dealing within a bishopric which was proven to the SP to be happening.  The story goes that the SP waited for Sacrament meeting to start, and got up and said he had some stake business and that he was releasing the entire bishopric and would be the acting bishop for the ward until other names were confirmed by Salt Lake.  No mention of why he was doing that.

That would actually be possible- we had one SP who was called while he was still bishop of his ward and he held both posts for a couple of months until a replacement was called to be bishop.

I don't know if the story is true, I think it is, but it is just too cool NOT to be true

All I knew for sure was that that ward was bishopless for a while, the rest could be rumor.

Edited June 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have heard of a case in a neighboring stake, so that makes the account semi-legendary I suppose but I like it anyway

Supposedly there was some double dealing within a bishopric which was proven to the SP to be happening.  The story goes that the SP waited for Sacrament meeting to start, and got up and said he had some stake business and that he was releasing the entire bishopric and would be the acting bishop for the ward until other names were confirmed by Salt Lake.  No mention of why he was doing that.

That would actually be possible- we had one SP who was called while he was still bishop of his ward and he held both posts for a couple of months until a replacement was called to be bishop.

I don't know if the story is true, I think it is, but it is just too cool NOT to be true

All I knew for sure was that that ward was bishopless for a while, the rest could be rumor.

A stake president does not have the authority to release a bishop without prior approval.  Releases, in general, are made by the same level of authority which issues the calling.  In the case of the bishop this would be the First Presidency.

Handbook 1 1.1.6

"Bishops. The stake presidency recommends brethren to be called or released as bishops. Instructions are on the Recommendation for New Bishop form. The stake president may call, ordain, and set apart a bishop, or release a bishop, after receiving written approval from the First Presidency."

So unless the stake president had first obtained approval for the release, the story sounds apocryphal. 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

It does make you wonder why the church would be paying off someone's discover card bill.

[Duncan]

I know a financially shady deal that was done in the 1950's that involved a mission president and Pres. McKay, the MP was a mission comp. of mine's Grandpa. The comp told me the story then I got verified by reading the Grandpa's online autobiography, just because i'm nosy

Edited June 7, 2017 by Duncan

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It does make you wonder why the church would be paying off someone's discover card bill.

My wife was a property manager in the SL valley and her tenants were perpetually behind on rent.
They frequently had the local bishop paying their rent for them, and the really "funny" part - my wife didn't think they were all actually members.

[Danzo]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My wife was a property manager in the SL valley and her tenants were perpetually behind on rent.
They frequently had the local bishop paying their rent for them, and the really "funny" part - my wife didn't think they were all actually members.

Church membership is not required to receive fast offering money.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

A stake president does not have the authority to release a bishop without prior approval.  Releases, in general, are made by the same level of authority which issues the calling.  In the case of the bishop this would be the First Presidency.

Handbook 1 1.1.6

"Bishops. The stake presidency recommends brethren to be called or released as bishops. Instructions are on the Recommendation for New Bishop form. The stake president may call, ordain, and set apart a bishop, or release a bishop, after receiving written approval from the First Presidency."

So unless the stake president had first obtained approval for the release, the story sounds apocryphal. 

 

Agreed- could go either way.  I never checked in the manual.  He might have gotten approval and just done it at the first possible time.   I dunno.   I just thought it was a cool story to go in and get rid of the bad guys right NOW.  Instant gratification!!   But yes, that actually happens rarely in real life at least if you are living righteously.   Funny how that is huh?

Judges and juries and actual thought and prayer?   Dang!  That's no fun at all!  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It does make you wonder why the church would be paying off someone's discover card bill.

Agree- though it's possible if say, one only purchased groceries on the card and could back that up with receipts from the market and the total receipts actually equaled the amount due on the bill AND the bill listed the same receipts etc etc.

Not likely but possible!  

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Church membership is not required to receive fast offering money.

Correct.   But I am curious to why a local Bishop would repeatedly pay rent for perpetually unemployed non-members.
Surely there is enough legitimate poverty to be helped.

[Calm]

16 hours ago, rchorse said:

I can't even imagine the blowback from my stake president had I authorized paying $9k to put in someone's lawn with Fast Offering funds as a bishop. It's pretty hard to see any legitimate reason for that one.

It is possible they helped with sod in order to get a house sold...or maybe a business started like a day care service.

I have been in two wards where rugs were replaced and walls painted in order to help sell the home, the first was because of filth and the second a home invasion where remaining family just didn't have the heart to stay.  Both cases might have been mostly or even all donations by members now I think about it.  The latter was a nonmember family who were friends with many in the ward.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Calm