whistleblower on Church finances

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I just went to our Area's website and picked my nation from the drop-down menu. The first tile on that web page is 'Contact Us', and it includes phone numbers for both global headquarters and the local service centre. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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. 

Since she called McKonkie and he referred her back to her SP, she might have assumed that they wouldn’t. 
 

Anyone want to test the theory?

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

Most people have at least one social media account they could be PM’d on.

Lots of older people don’t, I have found (I look a lot for people asking contact info for people who have something posted on FairMormon).

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

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). 

Did you see my post about calling the Church headquarters general line and asking how to contact one’s area presidency?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I just went to our Area's website and picked my nation from the drop-down menu. The first tile on that web page is 'Contact Us', and it includes phone numbers for both global headquarters and the local service centre. 

Well, there you go!

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since she called McKonkie and he referred her back to her SP, she might have assumed that they wouldn’t. 
 

Anyone want to test the theory?

McConkie is a lawyer, not a phone directory. 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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. 

That could be, I’ve never tried. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Lots of older people don’t, I have found (I look a lot for people asking contact info for people who have something posted on FairMormon).

I just located all three members of our Area Presidency on Facebook in the space of about 30 seconds.

In addition, I followed some of the links on our Area website, and it gave me the phone number for a local office of Family Services that I could ring if I needed help as a consequence of experiencing abuse.

[bluebell]

35 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.

Maybe, but that doesn’t promise a response of course. I would guess that GAs get a lot of unsolicited contact. Trying to track one down through a Twitter or Facebook account would be less effective. 

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you see my post about calling the Church headquarters general line and asking how to contact one’s area presidency?

Please do it so we know it works and they just don’t refer you to your bishop or stake president.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could be, I’ve never tried. 

We used that number a lot when I worked at the Church News. Even though we had authorized access to CDOL (Church Directory of Leaders) it was often easier and saved a lot of time just to call the Church general line. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please do it so we know it works and they just don’t refer you to your bishop or stake president.  

Why don’t you do it?

They’re probably closed now, though, so wait till tomorrow. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, Calm said:

Please do it so we know it works and they just don’t refer you to your bishop or stake president.  

I suspect one would need to explain that the stake president is off the rails, and I'm not sure that's a hypothetical that Scott should be experimenting with. Based on past experience, I feel reasonably confident that that message would be taken seriously, though it might result in a phone call from the Area office rather than just handing out the Area President's phone number.

I served with a stake presidency a long time ago as the executive secretary. A decision was taken that I knew was wrong. I took the opportunity to read out from the handbook the passage that said it was wrong. I was ignored. (I honestly think they couldn't 'hear' what I read out.) I was planning to contact the Area Presidency, but before I did, I was in the temple, and I took the opportunity to speak with the temple president. He told me not to worry, that he would contact the Area Presidency for me.

He never confirmed that he did, but the very next Coordinating Council Meeting included training from the Area President on this specific issue. Our stake president returned from the meeting with news of a 'new' approach in the Church, different to how things had always been done. This 'new' way was, of course, exactly what I had read out from the handbook in our stake presidency meeting some weeks earlier.

So I would now add that to my list of options: one can always request a meeting with a member of a temple presidency, and they have direct access to area presidencies.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why don’t you do it?

High anxiety mode right now and it’s your theory, not mine. 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

High anxiety mode right now and it’s your theory, not mine. 

You’re the one who is (apparently) skeptical about it. I’ve called the number and gotten what I needed enough that I’m confident. I don’t really care enough about assuaging others’ curiosity to bother with it. And they still might not believe me if I did. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re the one who is (apparently) skeptical about it. I’ve called the number and gotten what I needed enough that I’m confident. I don’t really care enough about assuaging others’ curiosity to bother with it. And they still might not believe me if I did. 

I am not skeptical, I just believe you shouldn’t assume something as more or less a given until it has been tried out.  When I make similar claims for the Church, I try to test them out first or ask for input from those who have experiences that I trust will be relatively accurate in reporting.

Given my own and others I know experiences with the Church, I would be surprised if it wasn’t given....especially these days if the word “abuse” was included.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

don’t really care enough about assuaging others’ curiosity to bother with it.

But it isn’t about curiosity but iirc weren’t you challenging the claim that there is no appeal process available to members?  Or rather ‘no way to sound the alarm’.

My interpretation of yours and others’ response who pointed to ease of finding contact info was “yes, there is”...which is a claim and therefore something that should be supported by those making the claim...a great way of doing so is to see if the suggestions work. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not skeptical, I just believe you shouldn’t assume something as more or less a theory a given until it has been tried out.  When I make similar claims for the Church, I try to test them out first or ask for input from those who have experiences that I trust will be relatively accurate in reporting.

Given my own and others I know experiences with the Church, I would be surprised if it wasn’t given. 

It’s more than a theory with me. It’s based on past experience. I can’t count the number of times I have called the general line and asked to be put through to Elder So-and-So’s office. I’m not even sure I identified myself each time when doing so. It’s just a switchboard receptionist. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it isn’t about curiosity but iirc weren’t you challenging the claim that there is no appeal process available to members?

Not really. I was questioning the assumption that it is difficult or impossible to identify one’s area presidency, a thing I disproved by finding names and photos on the Internet within 60 seconds of the presidency of the North America Northeast Area, which takes in Virginia. 
 

I tend to agree with Hamba that if there were serious and credible information that a stake president had gone off the rails, the claim would at least be investigated. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

That's a good point, and it highlights the real possibility of a person feeling uncomfortable with only one option availiable or only a man to tell. A man and a woman being in charge of the decision would increase their options. And that doesn't mean they'd be obliged to speak to both of them. On the other hand, some people are more comfortable if there is not just one person.

Essentially, though, I am concerned about the exclusion of women in these decision-making processes. On a systemic level, there can be more than one type of remedy. But to find at least one, recognizing the problem is important.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

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

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

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."

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

SMAC, there is nothing wrong with talking out loud. It's actually a very effective way for many people to engage serious issues and generate solutions. That applies to this news story as well, and to church finances. Whatever principles of integrity you hold onto, don't you think they will prove themselves in the light of day? I think they will. I see very little benefit in insisting on only private, discrete address of conflict.

When stories of a potentially scandalalous nature come to light, they cannot be accepted at face value, but neither does it serve humanity for gatekeepers to stifle them at the outset as you seem to want to do.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

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?

 

It is something Lesley Butterfield has addressed publicly, in a podcast with Gina Colvin. 

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So I would now add that to my list of options: one can always request a meeting with a member of a temple presidency, and they have direct access to area presidencies.

Can someone meet with a temple president without a templed recommend? Does that impact their opportunity to meet them?

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not really. I was questioning the assumption that it is difficult or impossible to identify one’s area presidency, a thing I disproved by finding names and photos on the Internet within 60 seconds of the presidency of the North America Northeast Area, which takes in Virginia. 
 

I tend to agree with Hamba that if there were serious and credible information that a stake president had gone off the rails, the claim would at least be investigated. 

I think perhaps a stronger barrier is that it simply just not taught. Are members taught about where they can seek recourse if they are experiencing negligence or abuse at local levels, ward or stake, if neither are helping? In my opinion, there is a very strong taboo in the church of challenging authority, and very little, if any, general instruction on how to do it appropriately. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Essentially, though, I am concerned about the exclusion of women in these decision-making processes. On a systemic level, there can be more than one type of remedy.

I have observed women in the Church making women's decisions as women, and I have witnessed men in the Church making men's decisions as men. In both cases, things run fair to poor. I have also -- and much more frequently -- witnessed men and women in the Church making inspired decisions via revelation. In this case, miracles happen. I much prefer this option, which is not dependent on sex.

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Can someone meet with a temple president without a templed recommend? Does that impact their opportunity to meet them?

Not in the temple. I can't speak for all temple presidents, but I know that if ours were contacted by a member without a recommend, he would probably go out of his way to make a meeting happen.

But then, it's been my experience that nearly all Church leaders will go out of their ways to meet with a member who is genuinely concerned about fixing a problem in contrast to attacking another person.