whistleblower on Church finances

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have seen how my ex-sister in law posts publicly on-line, and I have seen how she is in private.  Two different people, two different stories. 

True, people can be duplicitous.

I do find the receipts troublesome, though, on their own.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I know because she's in many online support groups.

She seems to have primary custody of her four children (see here).  And per LinkedIn, her job is "Care Coordinator" at "Magellan Health."  Her ex is a practicing physician.  So it's fair to surmise that her husband is financially better off than she is, at least in the first instance.

But there is no information about whether the husband pays alimony and child support.  That could alter the calculus quite a bit.

The article Tacenda posted says she filed for divorce "nearly three years ago," and that she "recently learned in court that her husband has received nearly $18,000 in church assistance paid directly to his mortgage and car payments." 

It would be pretty odd for divorce proceedings to drag on for three years.  Moreover, the first link above (published in May 2019) is a new media interview of her by a CBS affiliate in Roanoake, VA ("WDBJ") which identifies her as a "single mom of four kids" who was interviewed by the local news in Virginia about her budgeting tips. 

So if she was divorced prior to May of last year, why is she claiming some right to have access to information about the Church having previously helped her husband with financial support? 

Given that

• A) she filed for divorce "nearly three years ago," and
• B) the likelihood of a three-year-long divorce is pretty low, and
• C) she presented herself publicly last year as a "single mom," and
• D) she only "recently learned in court" about the Church's assistance for her husband, and
• E) she has a substantial track record of publicly saying some pretty nasty things about the Church,

I'm inclined to view this story as more of a vendetta than as legitimately newsworthy.  A vendetta against her husband and/or the Church.

It is unfortunate that she has chosen to play out this drama in the public sphere.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She can ask for information from the bank, if her name is on those accounts.  I don't think she has any right to make demands to a payor.

To the contrary, I can think of all sorts of reasons the Church would not want to respond to demands from Spouse A (who "is in the middle of a divorce") about financial assistance to Spouse B.

The Church really doesn't want to take sides in such matters.  But I don't think we can or ought to construe financial assistance as "taking sides."

What if Lesley had asked the Church for financial assistance, and the response she got was "Hey, sorry.  You're in the middle of a messy divorce.  You're on your own"?

Yep.  

That's "the reason that the news is interested," but I don't think an acrimonious divorce playing out in Virginia is "newsworthy."  At all.

-Smac

I wasn’t speaking about the church, only referring to the question of what information the woman could be entitled too. 

And I don’t think the acrimonious divorce is the news story; I think it’s just the background details of the news story.

 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She seems to have primary custody of her four children (see here).  And per LinkedIn, her job is "Care Coordinator" at "Magellan Health."  Her ex is a practicing physician.  So it's fair to surmise that her husband is financially better off than she is, at least in the first instance.

But there is no information about whether the husband pays alimony and child support.  That could alter the calculus quite a bit.

The article Tacenda posted says she filed for divorce "nearly three years ago," and that she "recently learned in court that her husband has received nearly $18,000 in church assistance paid directly to his mortgage and car payments." 

It would be pretty odd for divorce proceedings to drag on for three years.  Moreover, the first link above (published in May 2019) is a new media interview of her by a CBS affiliate in Roanoake, VA ("WDBJ") which identifies her as a "single mom of four kids" who was interviewed by the local news in Virginia about her budgeting tips. 

So if she was divorced prior to May of last year, why is she claiming some right to have access to information about the Church having previously helped her husband with financial support? 

Given that

• A) she filed for divorce "nearly three years ago," and
• B) the likelihood of a three-year-long divorce is pretty low, and
• C) she presented herself publicly last year as a "single mom," and
• D) she only "recently learned in court" about the Church's assistance for her husband, and
• E) she has a substantial track record of publicly saying some pretty nasty things about the Church,

I'm inclined to view this story as more of a vendetta than as legitimately newsworthy.  A vendetta against her husband and/or the Church.

It is unfortunate that she has chosen to play out this drama in the public sphere.

Thanks,

-Smac

As far as I know, the divorce is not final.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As far as I know, the divorce is not final.

Doesn't really change the calculus, though.  It's still a vendetta.  It's still playing out a private matter in the public sphere, at her apparent behest.  It's still not newsworthy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Church fast offering payments are virtually never sent directly to the person. They are instead sent to the mortgage company directly. She might be able to infer them if she sees a lack of mortgage payments on an account. Seems a little far fetched though that she can calculate and confirm it unless someone leaked confidential church expense reports to her or told her.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wasn’t speaking about the church, only referring to the question of what information the woman could be entitled too. 

And I don’t think the acrimonious divorce is the news story; I think it’s just the background details of the news story.

I don't think this is a "news story."  The Church helping one of its members with house and car payments is not newsworthy.

The Church has thousands of bishops who authorize expenditures like this every day.  Millions upon millions of individual instances of bishops authorizing financial assistance for members.  Why would a soon-to-be-divorced, super-duper-public critic of the Church living and getting divorced in Virginia try to persuade a news outlet in Utah to run this story?  

The story is Lesley's vendetta against the Church.  That's why the news outlet ran it.

IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Doesn't really change the calculus, though.  It's still a vendetta.  It's still playing out a private matter in the public sphere, at her apparent behest.  It's still not newsworthy.

Thanks,

-Smac

I see it differently. I see what appears to be an individual making a public appeal after having exhausted all other means of support. And I think that the gender divisions in the church can create situations where some leaders identify more with husbands (because they're also men) than with wives, even unintentionally. This can result in imbalanced manner of support when marital conflicts arise.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If you watch the video in the link, there is an actual recording of McConkie's voice saying "area authority".  Habits are hard to break. 

I only read the story.  I'm sure it was just out of habit, as you say.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I see it differently. I see what appears to be an individual making a public appeal after having exhausted all other means of support.

Appeal for what?  Attention?  Pressure on the Church?  Sympathy?  Outrage?  Some combination of these?

And "means of support" for what?  Are you suggesting she is trolling for public sympathy, hoping it will turn into cash?

And I'm still not seeing how this story, being published by a Utah news outlet about a private dispute over finances between a divorce taking place in Virginia, is newsworthy.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

And I think that the gender divisions in the church can create situations where some leaders identify more with husbands (because they're also men) than with wives, even unintentionally. This can result in imbalanced manner of support when marital conflicts arise.

Huh?  How does misogyny/patriarchy figure into this?  Are you suggesting the Church was willing to provide financial assistance to the man, but not to the woman?  Where are you getting that?

Has Lesley asked for financial assistance from the Church?  It's kinda hard to imagine the Church refusing to provide assistance to a "single mom of four kids."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

Just now, smac97 said:

I don't think this is a "news story."  The Church helping one of its members with house and car payments is not newsworthy.

The Church has thousands of bishops who authorize expenditures like this every day.  Millions upon millions of individual instances of bishops authorizing financial assistance for members.  Why would a soon-to-be-divorced, super-duper-public critic of the Church living and getting divorced in Virginia try to persuade a news outlet in Utah to run this story?  

The story is Lesley's vendetta against the Church.  That's why the news outlet ran it.

IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t agree. I don’t think the story says anything bad about the church so as a vendetta the story doesn’t really work.  It doesn’t report anything that damaging to the church. 

 

 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And I think that the gender divisions in the church can create situations where some leaders identify more with husbands (because they're also men) than with wives, even unintentionally. This can result in imbalanced manner of support when marital conflicts arise.

My observations have been that some (male) leaders are more sympathetic to women and hold men to a higher standard. 

[smac97]

Just now, bluebell said:

I don’t agree. I don’t think the story says anything bad about the church so as a vendetta the story doesn’t really work.  

Well, I can't think of any other reason for a news outlet in Utah to run a story about a divorce happening in Virginia.

Just now, bluebell said:

It doesn’t report anything that damaging to the church. 

Money and religion.  It may be a failed attempt to rake some muck.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My observations have been that some (male) leaders are more sympathetic to women and hold men to a higher standard. 

I think that is also plausible, both extremes. The remedy to them imo is more equal representation of gender among those making these decisions at ward and stake levels.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that is also plausible, both extremes. The remedy to them imo is more equal representation of gender among those making these decisions at ward and stake levels.

The assumption being that women are immune from differentiating based on gender, while men are not?

Moreover, "those making these {financial} decisions" is not really correct.  Authorization of financial assistance at the ward level is the exclusive province of the bishop, and of the stake president at the stake level.

So your "remedy" is . . . ordination of women to the priesthood.  More women in the Church than men are opposed to that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Appeal for what?  Attention?  Pressure on the Church?  Sympathy?  Outrage?  Some combination of these?

And "means of support" for what?  Are you suggesting she is trolling for public sympathy, hoping it will turn into cash?

And I'm still not seeing how this story, being published by a Utah news outlet about a private dispute over finances between a divorce taking place in Virginia, is newsworthy.

Huh?  How does misogyny/patriarchy figure into this?  Are you suggesting the Church was willing to provide financial assistance to the man, but not to the woman?  Where are you getting that?

Has Lesley asked for financial assistance from the Church?  It's kinda hard to imagine the Church refusing to provide assistance to a "single mom of four kids."

Thanks,

-Smac

Appeal to the public to apply pressure to the church because of the discretion given  to local leaders. Leslie's bishop (as she described in a podcast with Gina Colvin), when she sought help from him with the marital abuse, told her to return to the home and make things right. I don't know if she asked him for financial support, but it sounds like she had every reason to believe any help enabling her to flee her marriage would have been refused.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The assumption being that women are immune from differentiating based on gender, while men are not?

Moreover, "those making these {financial} decisions" is not really correct.  Authorization of financial assistance at the ward level is the exclusive province of the bishop, and of the stake president at the stake level.

So your "remedy" is . . . ordination of women to the priesthood.  More women in the Church than men are opposed to that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think ordination is necessary for women to be equally included in those decision processes. But yes, I do think that diversified perspectives improves the overall process.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Appeal to the public to apply pressure on the discretion given by church to local leaders.

Well, that seems pretty likely.

So it's not newsworthy.  It's Lesley using a news outlet to coerce a religious group into doing what she wants.

Not cool.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Leslie's bishop (as she described in a podcast with Gina Colvin), when she sought help from him with the marital abuse, told her to return to the home and make things right.

Not particularly inclined to uncritically accept Lesley's narrative.  

And none of that was included in the story Tacenda published.  Funny, that.  

Again, this story increasingly sounds like Lesley working out a vendetta.  Against her ex.  Against the Church.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't know if she asked him for financial support, but it sounds like she had every reason to believe any help enabling her to flee her marriage would have been refused.

Again, not really inclined to go along with her narrative.

Ulterior motives tend to undermine credibility.  And Lesley seems to have such motives.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, that seems pretty likely.

So it's not newsworthy.  It's Lesley using a news outlet to coerce a religious group into doing what she wants.

Not cool.

Not particularly inclined to uncritically accept Lesley's narrative.  

And none of that was included in the story Tacenda published.  Funny, that.  

Again, this story increasingly sounds like Lesley working out a vendetta.  Against her ex.  Against the Church.

Again, not really inclined to go along with her narrative.

Ulterior motives tend to undermine credibility.  And Lesley seems to have such motives.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Or it could just be a woman exhausting all available options to hold her life together in the face of marital and ecclesiastical abuse.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For me, the third factor re: her credibility (and non-newsworthiness of the story) is that there is essentially no nexus with Utah, but Lesley went to a Utah news outlet, despite living in - and getting divorced in - Virginia.

Thanks,

-Smac

Journalists generally are trained to harbor a cynical if not an adversarial attitude toward government — a watch-dog role, as it were — this because of the power that government holds over the individual. I’m afraid that too many journalists in Utah and elsewhere transfer that cynicism to their view of the Church of Jesus Christ, seeing it as being a quasi-government that wields power and influence. Hence, we see the occasional hit piece against the Church, a hit piece with dubious newsworthiness and one undertaken with questionable responsibility and professionalism. 
 

That’s perhaps why this story was pursued even though, as you correctly point out, it lacks proximity, one of the essential elements of newsworthiness. It amounts to one more opportunity to stick it to the big, bad “Mormon” church. 

[InCognitus]

Oh the irony of it all.... 

"The Church is hording money".  "The Church isn't helping the needy".  "The Church is helping a needy guy going through a divorce TOO MUCH".

 

[JAHS]

https://soundcloud.com/mormonland/church-finances-episode-114

Interesting discussion with Michael Quinn on Church finances. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think ordination is necessary for women to be equally included in those decision processes. But yes, I do think that diversified perspectives improves the overall process.

Again, the "decision processes" for financial assistance is the sole province of the bishop (at the ward level) and the stake president (at the stake level).

It's not a committee.

Moreover, you seem to be assuming that women are categorically immune from gender bias, but men are not.  Hence your call "for women to be equally included."  I don't think that works.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, the "decision processes" for financial assistance is the sole province of the bishop (at the ward level) and the stake president (at the stake level).

It's not a committee.

Moreover, you seem to be assuming that women are categorically immune from gender bias, but men are not.  Hence your call "for women to be equally included."  I don't think that works.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course it is the province of bishops and stake presidents. That can be remedied by fully including women in the processes. Equal inclusion tends to reduce bias of both parties because they can help each other see blind spots and consider alternative perspectives. It would in my opinion result in a better synthesis of male and female perspectives in those processes.

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Or it could just be a woman exhausting all available options to hold her life together in the face of marital and ecclesiastical abuse.

I'm not on board with uncritical acceptance of her narrative.

This is a private issue that should not be played out in the public sphere.  To the extent she views it as an "option," it's a coercive and manipulative one.  "Give me what I want, or I'll make splashy public accusations and try to foment public ill will against you, until you are coerced to submitting to my will."

I don't like that behavior.  

Thanks,

-Smac