kimpearson Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: As a Ward Clerk I would be defensive in an audit if you started demanding information beyond the basics. I am not surprised they were evasive. Most auditors don’t want to know specifics about why people are approved or denied. They just want the documentation. I have been through over a dozen audits under multiple bishops. I know the financial inputs and outputs of the ward and have prepared reports for the bishop. Many bishops make decisions I disagree with. I sign the check anyways. I have never gotten a note about how horrible someone is. I have at times been someone the Bishop can vent to about some problems but even there they avoid specifics. Mistreatment? What does that even mean in this context? Saying no? 1 hour ago, mrmarklin said: Other than the incident I mentioned, I have never questioned a bishop’s judgement about how money was spent. I’ve had many eye-rolling chats with financial clerks about certain names that would be recurring beyond a semi annual audit period. But really, it’s up to the bishop. The clerks have opinions and are willing to share them, so one gets an idea of what’s happening. But it’s down to the person who’s privy to ALL the facts in the end. As an auditor there’s no reason to challenge that judgement. Like I said many of you will fight to the death claiming no problems exist when they do. I won't change your minds but it is just sad to see such narrow minds that ignore so many wrongs that are committed by bishops and other church leaders. How will we ever get better as a people and a church. Just remember this verse and who Zion is (hint: its not the world) 2 NE 28:21 And others will he apacify, and lull them away into carnal bsecurity, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the cdevil dcheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.
SkyRock Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 Severe inequality in a society leads to many very bad outcomes. It leads in corruption, crime, division, greed, conflict, etc. In American history, the 50s had the lowest inequality. CEOs focused on improving products not juicing their stock options. The average CEO earned 10x the lowest employee. Today it is often 1,000x or more and so many employees are temps to further juice executive profits. It isn't good for the country. The BoM is clear on how bad inequality is.
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 11 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Like I said many of you will fight to the death claiming no problems exist when they do. I won't change your minds but it is just sad to see such narrow minds that ignore so many wrongs that are committed by bishops and other church leaders. How will we ever get better as a people and a church. Just remember this verse and who Zion is (hint: its not the world) 2 NE 28:21 And others will he apacify, and lull them away into carnal bsecurity, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the cdevil dcheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. So not giving the right people welfare payments will wrap us all in false carnal security? No, that would be just plain old wealth. 1
Calm Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 43 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Like I said many of you will fight to the death claiming no problems exist when they do. And you aren’t fighting as hard to prove the opposite? 4
JustAnAustralian Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 2 hours ago, kimpearson said: Like I said many of you will fight to the death claiming no problems exist when they do. I won't change your minds but it is just sad to see such narrow minds that ignore so many wrongs that are committed by bishops and other church leaders. I'm still not sure who you are claiming is saying that problems don't exist. No one in here is saying that problems don't exist. You even quoted someone saying the Bishop did things the clerk disagreed with financially, and another person has said the bishop went against the handbook. 2 hours ago, kimpearson said: I won't change your minds but it is just sad to see such narrow minds that ignore so many wrongs that are committed by bishops and other church leaders. So you're saying that Bishops should give money out willy nilly and simply take one side of a story (which won't be the church's side, as they don't publicise fast offering decisions) as gospel? So straight up right now. What exactly is it that you think Bishops should be doing? And don't avoid the question by saying "stop doing wrong" or "stop being biased towards certain individuals". If you expect Bishops to be perfect, you're never going to be happy. 4
kimpearson Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 2 hours ago, Calm said: And you aren’t fighting as hard to prove the opposite? 1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said: I'm still not sure who you are claiming is saying that problems don't exist. No one in here is saying that problems don't exist. You even quoted someone saying the Bishop did things the clerk disagreed with financially, and another person has said the bishop went against the handbook. So you're saying that Bishops should give money out willy nilly and simply take one side of a story (which won't be the church's side, as they don't publicise fast offering decisions) as gospel? So straight up right now. What exactly is it that you think Bishops should be doing? And don't avoid the question by saying "stop doing wrong" or "stop being biased towards certain individuals". If you expect Bishops to be perfect, you're never going to be happy. Yes I am trying to explain that there is a problem with how fast offering funds are administered by bishops. Is it all the payments, no. Did almost every bishop I audited and served with as a clerk demonstrate an inequity of how people were treated, yes. Did I have discussions where bishops, their counselors or clerks who freely expressed such bias with no real probing on my part, yes. They saw no issue with such discussions. The most sickening, were the jokes made about people being lazy, foolish or dishonest and everybody in the clerk's office laughing about it. Did I see large sums paid to one family for very weird reasons, yes. Did I see large amounts spent on ward dinners while expression were made that very few of those seeking assistance deserved it, yes. Did I see three or four times the amount spent on young men as young women not including scouting funds, yes. I think the Church needs a program just as rigorous as financial audits outside of leadership line of command to monitor bishops attitudes and treatment of fast offering recipients. Will the Church do such a thing? I doubt it because the attitude of leadership and many of you is that you always, always protect the Church even if it results in mistreatment of members. At a minimum, I would hope for strong reminders every conference to bishops and members about the proper attitude and treatment of fast offering recipients. When was the last time you heard such a reminder? Instead we constantly hear a general reminder to love everyone but no detailed warning of any kind of unrighteous behaviors by Church leaders. We have heard plenty of warnings to members to be self reliant. Yes I have an issue with that.
JustAnAustralian Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 (edited) 36 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Did I see large sums paid to one family for very weird reasons, yes. Were they valid payments or just weird? 36 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Did I see three or four times the amount spent on young men as young women not including scouting funds, yes. Did the young women ask for more money? Were there as many young women involved? 36 minutes ago, kimpearson said: At a minimum, I would hope for strong reminders every conference to bishops and members about the proper attitude and treatment of fast offering recipients. The general membership don't know who the fast offering recipients are. So this would essentially be the "treat everyone nicely" statements we always hear. Or maybe we could solve that. Everyone who wants financial assistance needs to go public, put out their financials for the world to see, and then we can "treat them with the proper attitude". Edited January 2, 2022 by JustAnAustralian 2
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 50 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Yes I am trying to explain that there is a problem with how fast offering funds are administered by bishops. Is it all the payments, no. Did almost every bishop I audited and served with as a clerk demonstrate an inequity of how people were treated, yes. Did I have discussions where bishops, their counselors or clerks who freely expressed such bias with no real probing on my part, yes. They saw no issue with such discussions. The most sickening, were the jokes made about people being lazy, foolish or dishonest and everybody in the clerk's office laughing about it. Did I see large sums paid to one family for very weird reasons, yes. Did I see large amounts spent on ward dinners while expression were made that very few of those seeking assistance deserved it, yes. Did I see three or four times the amount spent on young men as young women not including scouting funds, yes. I think the Church needs a program just as rigorous as financial audits outside of leadership line of command to monitor bishops attitudes and treatment of fast offering recipients. Will the Church do such a thing? I doubt it because the attitude of leadership and many of you is that you always, always protect the Church even if it results in mistreatment of members. At a minimum, I would hope for strong reminders every conference to bishops and members about the proper attitude and treatment of fast offering recipients. When was the last time you heard such a reminder? Instead we constantly hear a general reminder to love everyone but no detailed warning of any kind of unrighteous behaviors by Church leaders. We have heard plenty of warnings to members to be self reliant. Yes I have an issue with that. Yes, there is inequity. The welfare program is not a system where if you check off all the boxes you get this much and if you check half of them you get this much. The bishop is supposed to be inspired. Some decisions may seem unfair. By bias do you mean that there was someone they decided not to help? That happens all the time. Of course they laugh at some of the cases where people are dishonest or greedy or act entitled. It is gallows humor. It keeps bishops sane. Ward dinners do not come from the same funding source as fast offerings so that is not an either/or thing and I am not sure why an auditor would think they do. Was that money spent or money allocated when comparing Young Men and Young Women budgets? Most of the time the allocations are similar but one organization or another uses more or (in some cases) a leader buys stuff out of their own pocket and never asks to be reimbursed. What is this mistreatment you are talking about? How were people hurt? So you want a program where the fast offering recipient and the bishop do what? Have a monitor sit in and listen? Record or video the interview? The recipient is expected to submit a report to Salt Lake to review the bishop’s interview and decide how many stars to give it? How would you run this program that would not make the entire thing horrendously awkward to the point that members would rather not eat than endure it and leave the bishop dreading a welfare meeting with a ward member who reports unfairness and malfeasance at least once a year because they don’t get their way and Bishop has to meet again with someone to review the situation with time they don’t have. I would probably resign if I were a bishop and the stake and/or Salt Lake were badgering me on that level. You can have an issue with it but you are not offering solutions. 4
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 29 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said: Or maybe we could solve that. Everyone who wants financial assistance needs to go public, put out their financials for the world to see, and then we can "treat them with the proper attitude". Why stop there? We can go full democratization and have them submit their financials and what they are requesting and all adult ward members can vote on whether to approve or deny each request. Just set it up as part of the online system. We can even set up a forum system where members can discuss the request and ask each other questions about the request and what seems warranted. They can share stories of the rumors that the person went on a lavish vacation last year and how old their car looks or whatever. A real venue for ward members to bond with each other. 2
Calm Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said: Did the young women ask for more money? Were there as many young women involved? This was quite common in the past as reported by quite a few people, the further back the bigger the gap. It has been corrected to a great extent in my experience, my memory is it was starting to be required to be more equitable in terms of fundraising back when my son was in scouts, the scouts were annoyed they had to share funds they raised with parking (stadium nearby used our church parking lot), bottle collecting, and phone book distribution, but the YW weren’t allowed to have the fundraisers the boys were, so it was either that or cut the fundraising for the YM (this was 25 years ago). I am wondering what time period kp is referring to. There were still plenty of ways money was spent on the YM who were allowed to even drive down to Nauvoo when the YW couldn’t leave the province and instead of ocean kayaking and mountain climbing, got to go to the church camp. And yes, the Young Women leaders of our ward pushed for more interesting events for the girls and were rejected while the guys pretty much got to do whatever their leaders were willing to do. Number of girls was about equal, though concentration of ages were different (there were 13 boys my son’s age, maybe four girls, but the reverse was true for the older and younger class so it pretty much evened out iirc). Edited January 2, 2022 by Calm 3
JustAnAustralian Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 (edited) Thanks for your experience Calm. I've read about how it used to be, but mostly in rants, not laid out nicely and calmly like you just did. Edited January 2, 2022 by JustAnAustralian
Popular Post Amulek Posted January 2, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 2, 2022 6 hours ago, kimpearson said: I am trying to explain that there is a problem with how fast offering funds are administered by bishops. The problem is with the process itself or with the fallible people operating it? The former can be changed - the latter, unfortunately, we're kind of stuck with. Quote Did almost every bishop I audited and served with as a clerk demonstrate an inequity of how people were treated, yes. You keep using phrases like "inequity of how people were treated." What does that mean? Could you give us some examples of the disparate treatment you are referring to? Quote Did I have discussions where bishops, their counselors or clerks who freely expressed such bias with no real probing on my part, yes. They saw no issue with such discussions. Could you give us some examples of the sort of "freely expressed...bias" you are referring to? Quote The most sickening, were the jokes made about people being lazy, foolish or dishonest and everybody in the clerk's office laughing about it. Have you ever been a bishop or RS President (or EQ President within the last couple of years)? How much time have you spent with people who are actually petitioning the church for aid? Because, quite frankly, some of the people who need help are in deed lazy, foolish, or dishonest - honestly, it's often a combination. Those are facts, not attitudes. And here's the part you are leaving out, possibly due to ignorance, but there are people on the other side of this equation as well; people who, in their quest to get what they want from the church, will say and do some pretty awful things to the very people who are trying to help them. I believe some other posters in this thread have mentioned experiencing similar behavior. Trust me, it's a thing. Quote Did I see large sums paid to one family for very weird reasons, yes. Did I see large amounts spent on ward dinners while expression were made that very few of those seeking assistance deserved it, yes. Did I see three or four times the amount spent on young men as young women not including scouting funds, yes. The majority of your examples here have nothing to do with how fast offering funds are administered. Ward dinners and YM/YW activities are completely separate budgets. They have nothing to do with fast offerings at all. The first one is a legit possibility though. If large sums are being paid to one family, repeatedly, then that's something which legitimately merits further investigation. I don't think anyone would have any problem with that. Quote I think the Church needs a program just as rigorous as financial audits outside of leadership line of command to monitor bishops attitudes and treatment of fast offering recipients. Will the Church do such a thing? I doubt it because the attitude of leadership and many of you is that you always, always protect the Church even if it results in mistreatment of members. You yourself have said that bishops get it right 95% of the time. If that percentage isn't acceptable to you, then fine. It isn't. But I don't see how you could improve on it without dramatically changing the way things are done, and, in so doing, likely make things significantly worse. 7
Popular Post rongo Posted January 2, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 2, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Amulek said: And here's the part you are leaving out, possibly due to ignorance, but there are people on the other side of this equation as well; people who, in their quest to get what they want from the church, will say and do some pretty awful things to the very people who are trying to help them. I believe some other posters in this thread have mentioned experiencing similar behavior. Trust me, it's a thing. The bishop I replaced the second time left a fast offering deficit of $80,000. I wonder what Kim would have thought about that as an auditor? The stake president told me to do the best I could, and not to worry about the deficit. Six families with "full services" welfare lined up to meet with me the minute the meeting block was over when I was sustained. Full services --- housing, transportation, utilities, food. And this had been going on with these families for over a year. Teaching and insisting on welfare principles led to all of these families moving within two months --- but not before death threats. I parked my car on another street because there was a real threat that it could have been vandalized. Some were showing up unannounced at the house to beg/insist, and they easily got heated. Some magically found work after insisting that they couldn't, and that I was being a blankety-blank, when they had to because the gravy train had dried up. As "not fun" as this was for them, it wasn't much fun for me, either. I'm confused as to what Kim Pearson thinks I should have done in these cases. Should I have continued to help them, status quo? Was cutting them off and throwing them out of the nest to make them fly being biased, because I extended help to other families? Edited January 2, 2022 by rongo 6
Popular Post rchorse Posted January 3, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 3, 2022 11 hours ago, rongo said: The bishop I replaced the second time left a fast offering deficit of $80,000. I wonder what Kim would have thought about that as an auditor? The stake president told me to do the best I could, and not to worry about the deficit. Six families with "full services" welfare lined up to meet with me the minute the meeting block was over when I was sustained. Full services --- housing, transportation, utilities, food. And this had been going on with these families for over a year. Teaching and insisting on welfare principles led to all of these families moving within two months --- but not before death threats. I parked my car on another street because there was a real threat that it could have been vandalized. Some were showing up unannounced at the house to beg/insist, and they easily got heated. Some magically found work after insisting that they couldn't, and that I was being a blankety-blank, when they had to because the gravy train had dried up. As "not fun" as this was for them, it wasn't much fun for me, either. I'm confused as to what Kim Pearson thinks I should have done in these cases. Should I have continued to help them, status quo? Was cutting them off and throwing them out of the nest to make them fly being biased, because I extended help to other families? This mirrors my experience very closely. I did my best to treat everyone equally and without bias, but someone looking on from the outside could easily think I was unfair and biased simply because they lacked most of the facts. I was accused of being a racist, uncaring, unchristian, and an all-around terrible person. It was, without exception, a manipulation tactic. As soon as the expletives, name-calling, threats, and anger started, I knew saying no was the right call. People who sincerely needed help and were doing their best just didn't act that way. That said, I made mistakes. I got fooled by a few people who were using the assistance to free up money to buy drugs. I think every bishop gets fooled once in a while. The problem with judging a bishop's welfare decisions is that you will never have the full picture. Having to balance church guidelines, human compassion, healthy skepticism due to the many who take advantage, inspiration from the Spirit, and what will truly help rather than just push the problem off for a month is not easy. The example that stands out to me was a person who made enough money to be self sufficient, but had a car payment that was ridiculous given the income (25% of monthly take home pay or something similar). I told that person in our first meeting to sell the car and get something cheaper. The excuses came in immediately. They were underwater on the car loan. They needed reliable transportation for work. They would spend even more money fixing an older car, etc. They refused to sell the car and so after a month or two of this, I refused to provide any more assistance. I was the devil in this person's eyes for the next several months. Then, the car got repossessed, and they were forced to get something cheaper that they could actually afford. It was fascinating to watch them in the months after the repossession become truly self sufficient, and at the end bear testimony in sacrament meeting about what a blessing it was to be told no to church assistance and to lose that car. Someone just talking to this person or looking at the situation during an audit could have, and probably would have, concluded that I was mistreating them. But they wouldn't have had the full story. 10
JustAnAustralian Posted January 10, 2022 Posted January 10, 2022 And here we go again. Not sure why he needed more time. Quote Streamlined request by Appellant James Huntsman to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant James Huntsman opening brief due 02/04/2022. Appellee Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints answering brief due 03/07/2022. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. (deadlines were pushed by about a month) 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 On 1/2/2022 at 8:53 AM, rongo said: ... Teaching and insisting on welfare principles led to all of these families moving within two months --- but not before death threats. I parked my car on another street because there was a real threat that it could have been vandalized. Some were showing up unannounced at the house to beg/insist, and they easily got heated. Some magically found work after insisting that they couldn't, and that I was being a blankety-blank, when they had to because the gravy train had dried up. As "not fun" as this was for them, it wasn't much fun for me, either. Scarcely can I imagine! (Never been a bishop, never be a bishop, what with that whole "one wife" thingy ... among numerous reasons.) But, of course, as you well know (since you did it ) it was necessary. Assistance from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that does not foster as much self-reliance as possible defeats the purpose completely. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) On 1/2/2022 at 8:55 PM, rchorse said: ... The example that stands out to me was a person who made enough money to be self sufficient, but had a car payment that was ridiculous given the income (25% of monthly take home pay or something similar). I told that person in our first meeting to sell the car and get something cheaper. The excuses came in immediately. They were underwater on the car loan. They needed reliable transportation for work. They would spend even more money fixing an older car, etc. They refused to sell the car and so after a month or two of this, I refused to provide any more assistance. I was the devil in this person's eyes for the next several months. Then, the car got repossessed, and they were forced to get something cheaper that they could actually afford. It was fascinating to watch them in the months after the repossession become truly self sufficient, and at the end bear testimony in sacrament meeting about what a blessing it was to be told no to church assistance and to lose that car. ... You don't need my approbation: I'm simply telling you this so there won't be any doubt in your mind where I stand (that is, that I agree with you 1000%). If I'm paying 25% of my monthly take-home pay for something, By God, I want to be able to live in it! I can't, for the life of me, see how something like that would be worth it! "But I need the Mercedes to get to work!" "No. A Toyota will get you to work just fine!" Edited January 11, 2022 by Kenngo1969 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: You don't need my approbation: I'm simply telling you this so there won't be any doubt in your mind where I stand (that is, that I agree with you 1000%). If I'm paying 25% of my monthly take-home pay for something, By God, I want to be able to live in it! I can't, for the life of me, see how something like that would be worth it! "But I need the Mercedes to get to work!" "No. A Toyota will get you to work just fine!" There are different kinds of maintenance. I can’t readily imagine a higher-maintenance vehicle than one that requires 25 percent or more of my income just to keep it from being repo’d 1
Tacenda Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 (edited) I wish Ensign Peaks paid tithing in the form of legit charities. Seems pretty icky when members are expected to pay tithing and sacrifice their money for fast offerings, but Ensign Peaks rakes in billions w/o no output. Edited January 14, 2022 by Tacenda
Rain Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wish Ensign Peaks paid tithing in the form of legit charities. Seems pretty icky when members are expected to pay tithing and sacrifice their money for fast offerings, but Ensign Peaks rakes in billions w/o no output. Sincere question. Do you feel God should pay tithing?
Tacenda Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 Just now, Rain said: Sincere question. Do you feel God should pay tithing? No.. But get where you're coming from. I didn't say pay tithing or my description of it is being even more charitable. I understand tithing is to build up the kingdom. But then again, there is no kingdom w/o people in it. The Ensign Peaks isn't the church per say. I thought it was their investment arm. It's kind of a new idea of my own making. Why not businesses that are in the church or investment companies, expected to pay to a charity or fast offerings?
Rain Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: No.. But get where you're coming from. I didn't say pay tithing or my description of it is being even more charitable. I understand tithing is to build up the kingdom. But then again, there is no kingdom w/o people in it. The Ensign Peaks isn't the church per say. I thought it was their investment arm. It's kind of a new idea of my own making. Why not businesses that are in the church or investment companies, expected to pay to a charity or fast offerings? So you are ok with tithing going to the church buildings, materials, missionary work etc. You just feel that businesses that are connected with the church should be giving to charity. You're frustrated that you don't see evidence of this happening.
Tacenda Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 6 minutes ago, Rain said: So you are ok with tithing going to the church buildings, materials, missionary work etc. You just feel that businesses that are connected with the church should be giving to charity. You're frustrated that you don't see evidence of this happening. Yes, it's that over 100 billion thing getting to me again. Or more like the church has assets that are mostly likely triple that.
JustAnAustralian Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 How do you pay tithing on a share that has increased in value? And at what point do you do that? What about when it decreases in value? If it bounces between $20 and $21 do you have to repeatedly pay 10c over and over or is just the once enough?
Rain Posted January 14, 2022 Posted January 14, 2022 35 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Yes, it's that over 100 billion thing getting to me again. Or more like the church has assets that are mostly likely triple that. So it's not really that you don't see evidence of charitable giving. It is the amount that the church has been reported to have. 1
Recommended Posts