whistleblower on Church finances

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Of course it is the province of bishops and stake presidents.

What do you mean "of course"?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

That can be remedied by fully including women in the processes.

What "processes"?  What are you talking about?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Equal inclusion

What does that mean?

Are you talking about female ordination, or not?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

tends to reduce bias of both parties because they can help each other see blind spots and consider alternative perspectives.

Again, the authorization of financial assistance is the exclusive provice of the bishop and the stake president.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

It would in my opinion result in a better synthesis of male and female perspectives in those processes.

I don't know what this means.  Who is it that you think should be involved?  The RS president?  What "processes" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Well, I would hope that people do not accept it uncritically but also don't dismiss is out of hand.

I think that, given the limited recourse women and any members have in the church when confronted with ecclessiastical abuse, and that heightened by the vulnerability created by marital abuse, some understanding might be granted enough to listen to her case. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What do you mean "of course"?

What "processes"?  What are you talking about?

What does that mean?

Are you talking about female ordination, or not?

Again, the authorization of financial assistance is the exclusive provice of the bishop and the stake president.

I don't know what this means.  Who is it that you think should be involved?  The RS president?  What "processes" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't understand your not understanding. It's simple: designate a female to join with the bishop in these decisions about financial assistance. Find a way to change the process enough so that men and women both make the decisions as a team.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

So you see it as imperative that it be shifted from involving one person to two in order to provide balance of a male and female point of view, correct?

What about those people who find it hard enough to let one person know of their difficulties, talking to two people might be overwhelming?

[smac97]

1 hour 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.

I really don't understand what you are proposing.

Have you considered the perspective of the individual?  Do you know how hard it can be for them to go to a bishop and ask for financial assistance?  And you want that request to become a "process"?  And not only that, a "process" to be submitted to, and decided by, a "committee" of your friends and neighbors?  

And this "committee" would be comprised of exactly 50% men and 50% women.  Right?  How many are you proposing?  Five each?  Three?

And the folks on this committee would presumably sit down with the individual and be at liberty to ask the individual questions about his/her finances and personal life.  Right?

And then the committee . . . votes?  Is that what you are suggesting?  Is it a unanimous thing?  Majority?  Plurality?  What are you proposing?

And how often would this committee meet?  Once a month?  Once a week?  What if the need for financial assistance is immediate?  Is the bishop just supposed to shrug?  "Hey, sorry.  Your request for financial assistance has not been approved by the 50%-men-and-50%-women committee.  The committee - comprised of your friends and neighbors, the people you see interact and worship with - will meet in two weeks to discuss your personal finances, ask you questions, and vote.  Please come back then."

Do you really think the members will be better off by submitting requests for financial assistance to a ward-level bureaucratic "committee" comprised of friends and neighbors?  

'Cuz I don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

think that, given the limited recourse women and any members have in the church when confronted with ecclessiastical abuse

RS Pres and other female leaders can also be abusive, are you including them in this?

Are you discussing the problem with access to higher ups when lower appeals don’t work or only men to appeal to or something else?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

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.  

Well, I would hope that people do not accept it uncritically but also don't dismiss is out of hand.

I strongly dislike coercive, manipulative tactics.  Particularly when employed by a member of the Church against the Church, and particularly when it involves efforts to foment ill will and public opinion against the Church, and in favor of the individual, and when it pertains to a private matter than should not be addressed in the public sphere.

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that, given the limited recourse women and any members have in the church when confronted with ecclessiastical abuse,

Oh, brother.  She's a grown-up.  Nobody is putting a gun to her head.  She has a brain.  She is at liberty to accept, or not accept, counsel from her bishop (assuming - and that's a big assumption - that she is fairly characterizing what he said).  

And the "news" item has nothing to do with "ecclesiastical abuse."  There is nothing "abusive" about the Church providing financial assistance to a member of the Church in need.

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

and that heightened by the vulnerability created by marital abuse, some understanding might be granted enough to listen to her case. 

No.  This is not a newsworthy story.  If anything, I think it is a cynical and self-serving effort by her to simultaneously A) garner sympathy and validation (and money?) for herself and B) coerce and manipulate the Church, or else make it look bad, or else foment public sentiment against the Church (as evidenced by your repeated assertions of "ecclesiastical abuse"), and C) humiliate her husband by publishing private facts about it.

I see nothing worthwhile or legitimate about her efforts to publish private facts about a couple divorcing in Virginia in a news outlet in Utah.  I see plenty of reason to be suspicious about such efforts.

-Smac

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I really don't understand what you are proposing.

Have you considered the perspective of the individual?  Do you know how hard it can be for them to go to a bishop and ask for financial assistance?  And you want that request to become a "process"?  And not only that, a "process" to be submitted to, and decided by, a "committee" of your friends and neighbors?  

It's a process in our ward right now and it seems to be working really well.  Our ward has two welfare specialists who people in need can contact and who will go over their finances with them, and their needs, and get all the necessary information as part of the process of getting help from the bishop.  I don't know why one of those couldn't be a woman.  

I think that over all, women are well suited for the task since they are often in charge of food shopping and bills in their own homes so they understand family needs and also what things cost.  There is certainly wisdom and experience that comes from running a home that someone who hasn't done it might not have.

I remember one sister telling a story about a bishop who refused to approve what he believed to be an exorbitant amount of toilet paper for a family of 4 girls, until a sister took him aside and highlighted the gap in his knowledge on the issue.  After that, he apologized and quickly approved the purchase.  

 

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It would be pretty odd for divorce proceedings to drag on for three years.

Maybe not as odd as you think.

Quote

You’re probably still looking at an average minimum of a year, but I’ve seen plenty of these cases (especially where custody or support is an issue) take years. So, yeah, needless to say – it depends!  Link

 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't understand your not understanding.

You are proposing a change to the "process" wherein the Church's local leaders - the bishop (and, to a much lesser extent, the stake president) authorize financial assistance.

You are not providing any sort of explanation for the proposed change.  You are, instead, just hinting.  Apparently you want a committee involved.  And the committee has to involve exactly 50% men and 50% women.  And this committee would replace the bishop's role in authorizing financial assistance.

This makes very little sense on its face, hence my repeated requests for clarification.

Your refusal to provide such clarification suggests that you haven't really thought any of this through.  That you are just making it up as you go along.  That you have no idea how your proposed "process" would work, who would be involved, etc.

Am I wrong?

Quote

It's simple: designate a female to join with the bishop in these decisions about financial assistance.

That's not simple at all.

Who would this "female" be?  The RS president?  Some other person?  Would it be a calling? 

Would she and the bishop be co-equal in authority, or could one supersede the other? 

Would the woman just function in an advisory capacity?  If so, how is that "equal"? 

"Equal" would presumably mean "equal in authority," yes?  So that would entail female ordination?

And how would "equal in authority" work when the bishop and the "female" don't agree?  Do they flip a coin?  Cast lots?  Arm wrestle?  What do you propose they do with an impasse?

Where is the doctrinal/scriptural justification for this proposal? 

Would this "female" work privately with the bishop?  Given that bishops can end up spending hours working on such issues, the "female" would presumably be right there with him.  In his office.  In his car.  Accompanying him on visits.  Do you see any problem with that?

Holy cow.  What you are proposing is a huge can of worms.  It's not remotely "simple."

Quote

Find a way to change the process enough so that men and women both make the decisions as a team.

I give up.

I thought you had a serious proposal.  You just seem to be talking out loud.

If and when you have a propose to "change the process," I'm happy to listen.  As it is, though, this just seems like armchair quarterbacking.

Also, are you familiar with "Chesterton's Fence"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[Amulek]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

[G]iven the limited recourse women and any members have in the church when confronted with ecclessiastical abuse [...]

Has there been any evidence whatsoever of ecclesiastical abuse at all in this case? Or is that just a hypothetical you are using as the basis to help understand her behavior?

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's a process in our ward right now and it seems to be working really well.  Our ward has two welfare specialists who people in need can contact and who will go over their finances with them, and their needs, and get all the necessary information as part of the process of getting help from the bishop.  I don't know why one of those couldn't be a woman.  

Sounds like a great idea.  This is already in place, though.  It's already happening, so Meadow can't have this in mind.

Instead, apparently looking for 50%men-and-50%-women parity in the decision to authorize assistance.  That's not workable, IMO.  Welfare specialists make recommendations, but the bishop makes the call. 

Quote

I think that over all, women are well suited for the task since they are often in charge of food shopping and bills in their own homes so they understand family needs and also what things cost.  There is certainly wisdom and experience that comes from running a home that someone who hasn't done it might not have.

I quite agree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds like a great plan.

The problem, though, is that Meadow is apparently looking for 50%men-and-50%-women parity in the decision to authorize assistance.  That's not workable, IMO.  Welfare specialists make recommendations, but the bishop makes the call. 

And I see no problem at all with the specialists being women.  This is already happening in the Church.  

I quite agree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Meadow can speak for herself, but I don't think she's asking for anything that rigid or strict.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Meadow can speak for herself, but I don't think she's asking for anything that rigid or strict.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Well, that's sort of the problem.  She's not explaining anything.  

I'm happy to listen to serious proposals.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, 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.  It doesn’t report anything that damaging to the church. 

I agree with smac here.  If this was purely about her nasty divorce and her nasty husband, why would she go public with it in Utah?

If you watch the video, it is all focused on why the church and its practices are deceitful and a problem -  very, very little about her husband at all.

First, she is trying to show that the church is deceitful in claiming that fast offerings only go to "assist the poor".  She counters that quote from the church with documentation showing that her husband earns $300,000/year.  In essence saying, "you can't trust the church in how it handles their finances, they can't be trusted."

Second, the news piece then says, "fast offerings used to exacerbate a messy divorce."  Again, this is all to question the integrity of the church and not about her husband.

Third, she then continues to elbow the church by complaining that the "system is broken" in her case.  McKonkie advises her to call her area authority.  Then, of course, her complaint is not about her husband but that area authoriy information is not readily available and that the stake president promised to provide it, but essentially lied and never did.   She says about the church, "there is no way for members to sound the alarm..."

This looks to me like an attempted hit piece on the church and not a public hit piece on her husband who doesn't even live in Utah.     

 

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

Anyhoo, back to the "Whistleblower" topic...

D. Michael Quinn has done an interview with the Trib on this issue: Church has $100B in reserve, but one historian says its global expenses are steep | Episode 114

It's 45 minutes.  Will try to listen to it later.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD:

Quinn spends the first few minutes reviewing the Church's prior history of financial problems, the efforts by leaders like J. Reuben Clark to stabilize the Church's finance's and create a "reserve fund," etc., and the results we see today of those ongoing efforts.

A money quote (starting at about 3:55): "This reserve fund, in my view, is conservative.  And I know 100 billion is a huge amount of money, but maybe as we can discuss later, I think it terms of the Church's worldwide expenditures, and its commitments to congregations, not only throughout the United States, but throughout the world, that 100 billion, if there were another Great Depression, worse than the Great Recession that we experienced at the beginning of, the first years of this century, if something like that occurred again, that 100 billion wouldn't last for more than a few years."

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with smac here.  If this was purely about her nasty divorce and her nasty husband, why would she go public with it in Utah?

If you watch the video, it is all focused on why the church and its practices are deceitful and a problem -  very, very little about her husband at all.

First, she is trying to show that the church is deceitful in claiming that fast offerings only go to "assist the poor".  She counters that quote from the church with documentation showing that her husband earns $300,000/year.  In essence saying, "you can't trust the church in how it handles their finances, they can't be trusted."

Second, the news piece then says, "fast offerings used to exacerbate a messy divorce."  Again, this is all to question the integrity of the church and not about her husband.

Third, she then continues to elbow the church by complaining that the "system is broken" in her case.  McKonkie advises her to call her area authority.  Then, of course, her complaint is not about her husband but that area authoriy information is not readily available and that the stake president promised to provide it, but essentially lied and never did.   She says about the church, "there is no way for members to sound the alarm..."

This is clearly an attempted hit piece on the church in Utah and not a public hit piece on her husband who doesn't even live in Utah.     

 

 

I admit that I haven't watched the video and have only read the article.  All of my responses have been based on it.  If there is more information available then I amend my views.  It does sound like she's right on one point though in that there isn't a way for members to sound the alarm, is there? 

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, that's sort of the problem.  She's not explaining anything.  

I'm happy to listen to serious proposals.

Thanks,

-Smac

She lives in Europe I think, where it's probably close to midnight.  Maybe she'll have more to say tomorrow.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I admit that I haven't watched the video and have only read the article.  All of my responses have been based on it.  If there is more information available then I amend my views.  It does sound like she's right on one point though in that there isn't a way for members to sound the alarm, is there? 

Mckonkie suggested to her that she has 2 options, contact her area authority or get an attorney.  She chose option 3 - go public (best potential for damage).

If she really wanted to contact her area authority (or whatever they are called now) she could find the info.  I don't think their assignments are kept secret, I am sure she could find it with very little digging.  I am not even entirely confident that she even tried to follow up with her stake president on getting his contact info.    

Edited January 8, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Mckonkie suggested to her that she has 2 options, contact her area authority or get an attorney.  She chose option 3 - go public (best potential for damage).

If she really wanted to contact her area authority (or whatever they are called now) she could find the info.  I don't think their assignments are kept secret, I am sure she could find it with very little digging.  I am not even entirely confident that she even tried to follow up with her stake president on getting his contact info.    

Area Seventy. 
 

And just now, after less than a minute of searching, I found the name and photos of the area president for Virginia (Randall K. Bennett) and his two counselors in the area presidency (General Authority Seventy and/or area seventies). I found it by Googling “North America Northeast Area presidency”.

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

Mckonkie suggested to her that she has 2 options, contact her area authority or get an attorney.  She chose option 3 - go public (best potential for damage).

If she really wanted to contact her area authority (or whatever they are called now) she could find the info.  I don't think their assignments are kept secret, I am sure she could find it with very little digging.  I am not even entirely confident that she even tried to follow up with her stake president on getting his contact info.    

Even knowing there names there contact information isn't published anywhere that I can find.  

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even knowing there names there contact information isn't published anywhere that I can find.  

In the internet age it is not usually hard to find that information on people who are not intentionally trying hide.  You could probably even find him in the good ol’ fashion phone book - quite a few old schoolers still use a land line.  Most people have at least one social media account they could be PM’d on.

Edited January 9, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even knowing there names there contact information isn't published anywhere that I can find.  

 

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

In the internet age it is not usually hard to find that information on people who are not intentionally trying hide.  You could probably even find him in the good ol’ fashion phone book - quite a few old schoolers still use a land line.  Most people have at least one social media account they could be PM’d on.

I’m fairly certain one could learn the name and contact information of his or her area president by calling the Church headquarters general number ((801)240-1000) and asking. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is nothing "abusive" about the Church providing financial assistance to a member of the Church in need.

I am assuming the current  “abuse” is seen as being what appears to be an unequal treatment of her husband and herself and the SP not giving her the number of the area seventy. But perhaps I missed something. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

In the internet age it is not usually hard to find that information on people who are not intentionally trying hide.  You could probably even find him in the good ol’ fashion phone book - quite a few old schoolers still use a land line.  Most people have at least one social media account they could be PM’d on.

Where can you find a hard copy phone book these days?  They don’t deliver them anymore where I live. serious question, libraries used to keep them. Do they still?
 

And for phone numbers from online services, nowadays you have to pay a fee even for those that are public (I tested this by looking up my own). 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Calm