Should a bishop be notified if a man, receiving fast offerings, smokes?

[Palerider]

If I were a Bishop and found out someone I was helping with the Lords money was buying smokes with his own money ......I would be upset. The Lords money is sacred. My opinion.

[David13]

It is totally irrelevant if said person receives church assistance to pay bills and uses other money to buy cigarettes, or just uses the churches money to buy the cigarettes.

Either way, if the Bishop knows, then it's up to the Bishop.

Even someone receiving assistance is allowed some items of recreation or entertainment or enjoyment.   But of a modest nature as determined by the Bishop.

Any moral person will sell the Rolex watch before they receive assistance, and the cigarettes are like the Rolex watch ... only harmful.

Read the warning label on them.

dc

Edited May 7, 2015 by David13

[MarginOfError]

If the bishop doesn't know about the smoking habit, he should, but not for the reasons you are concerned. An important part of establishing self sufficiency is freeing yourself from addiction.

But I would be hesitant to take away financial support from someone only because of an addiction. Stress is one of the biggest triggers for turning to addictive behavior, so withholding needed financial support would invoke more stress making it harder to quit. So cutting off financial support may only exacerbate two problems.

The appropriate course of action is to persuade the person of the importance of giving up the addiction and getting them into a program where they can succeed.

[Leah]

Not necessarily so.  If we have information a bishop does not we are duty bound to inform the bishop of circumstances.  People abuse the Church and its welfare assistance, and with proper information bishops can make better or more educated decisions in accordance with revelation.

 

Our ward has had its fair share of abusers.  With additional information which have been brought to our bishops attention at times better decisions were made regarding families. Example, true story, family reaches out for assistance during Christmas. Bishop is happy to help.  Bishop was informed father just purchased a $500 golf pass so he could play golf.  Now the bishop has better information which he can discuss with the father privately.  Yes, it doesn't matter where we work, if we are in the neighborhood or not, if we have information of possible abuse of sacred funds, we are duty bound to let it be known (privately with the bishop) and then let he who has stewardship to make the decision.

This is the guy's boss, meddling in his personal life.  He has no business doing that.   It's overstepping some serious bounds.  He's inviting a lawsuit with that kind of behavior.

[Anddenex]

In the case of the OP, his employee smokes and he know he is on church assistance. I am not sure that he is duty bound to meddle in that mans affairs because of this. 

 

This is the statement inducing my responses from the OP, "I was generous to give him a raise, even though he said that his bishop helps him out with providing funds from fast offerings."

 

In this situation, whether boss or not, if a raise was given which would compensate for the Church's assistance then yes, the bishop should be informed. 

 

Once informed, then it is up to the bishop to pray and consider the information received and what to do about it.  I don't see how any lawsuit could occur, but then again, people will sue over anything in our day.

 

These are sacred funds being handed to someone who appears in need, from information the recipient has provided.  If financial situations have changed then that individual should let the bishop know himself, if not, the boss should if he knows he was receiving support before the raise.

 

I suppose I am more conscious due to the needs of the ward I am in and knowing the decisions our bishops have to make on a weekly basis, and if a member were to receive a raise and still pursue assistance without divulging the raise, yes, our bishops would want to know and would be grateful for the knowledge.  

[EarlJibbs]

This is the statement inducing my responses from the OP, "I was generous to give him a raise, even though he said that his bishop helps him out with providing funds from fast offerings."

 

In this situation, whether boss or not, if a raise was given which would compensate for the Church's assistance then yes, the bishop should be informed. 

 

Once informed, then it is up to the bishop to pray and consider the information received and what to do about it.  I don't see how any lawsuit could occur, but then again, people will sue over anything in our day.

 

These are sacred funds being handed to someone who appears in need, from information the recipient has provided.  If financial situations have changed then that individual should let the bishop know himself, if not, the boss should if he knows he was receiving support before the raise.

 

I suppose I am more conscious due to the needs of the ward I am in and knowing the decisions our bishops have to make on a weekly basis, and if a member were to receive a raise and still pursue assistance without divulging the raise, yes, our bishops would want to know and would be grateful for the knowledge.  

 

I completely understand what you are saying and 100% agree that the funds used are most sacred. I served not only as EQP dealing with getting the financials and helping ward members put together their own plan, but also in the Bishopric giving council on the matters we saw. The majority of the larger givers of fast offerings in the ward were usually those that probably had the least, which made it much harder when we saw it abused.  

 

However, I still disagree that as his employer, he should get involved. As a friend, if they are, he should just talk to him personally about it. See how the raise is working out for him. 

 

The fear of a lawsuit isn't just because people are sue happy, it's because you have someone in a position of authority (his boss) getting directly involved in the employees life in a way that could be detrimental to his employee. He has a conflict of interest. I just don't see how that conversation would sound... "Hi Bishop, I am the employer of Brother Doe, he mentioned that he was getting assistance from the church so I gave him a raise. Oh and I know he still smokes. Did you know either of those two things? I Just wanted you to be aware of those personal things to help you decide if you will continue to assist him" 

 

Anyhow, that's my take on it. One out of a million people. 

[pam]

One thing that just came to mind.  Being concerned about the smoking etc..isn't giving a raise also contributing to this?

 

We seem to be saying that having help from the Church is allowing him his own money to spend on cigarettes, but giving a raise to me is doing the same thing.

 

I kind of feel like blame is being put on the church but not holding others accountable as well.  Just my thoughts.

[David13]

One thing that just came to mind.  Being concerned about the smoking etc..isn't giving a raise also contributing to this?

 

We seem to be saying that having help from the Church is allowing him his own money to spend on cigarettes, but giving a raise to me is doing the same thing.

 

I kind of feel like blame is being put on the church but not holding others accountable as well.  Just my thoughts.

 

Pam!!

My mind must be blind. 

I have seen people die from smoking related diseases, one of whom was paid more on the job ... if he did not smoke.

Yes, the raise with the knowledge that money is being spent on cigarettes is what is known as ... enabling.

dc

[Str8Shooter]

It's none of your business. Especially as his boss, it's none of your business.

You are desiring to meddle in an employee's personal life. You are way out of bounds.

And it seems you are motivated by a desire to pass judgment on someone else.

As a boss, it is correct to say it is none of your business. As a disciple of Christ, it is your business to privately discuss with the Bishop any concerns you may have with the use of sacred funds. Chances are the Bishop knows and the smoking issue is already being addressed, but there is a chance the Bishop may not know.

If the individual was receiving no funds from the Church, it would be meddling. Since sacred funds are being received, reporting to the Bishop privately is an ethical requirement.

In this situation, desiring to pass judgment is appropriate because the only judgment that is being passed is coming from the Bishop who is a judge in Israel.

A vital part of this situation is that everything is done in complete and total confidence. Don't even tell a spouse. Tell the Bishop and, as it has been stated previously, refer to it no more.

Fraudulent use of church funds happens. There are those who travel from ward to ward taking advantage of charitable people. The Bishop needs to be informed of any possible misuse of funds. Chances are it's already being addressed, but it's best to be sure.

[Vort]

When I was a teenager, my parents were low on money and I willingly gave them all I had earned over the summer working on a farm, a couple of thousand dollars, I think. They gave some of it to my older brother, who was attending a state university. When he was less than responsible with his classes, flunked out of school, and came home, I had some less-than-charitable things to say about him "wasting my money". I blush in deep shame just remembering it, and thank God that today my brother and I have a good and loving relationship.

 

I think the same principle is at work here when we worry about the smoker using "Church funds" to buy cigarettes. I completely agree that it's pointless and even stupid to pretend that *this* money over here is being used only for "good" things like rent and food, but *that* money over there is being used for bad things like cigarettes, and let's make sure the Church's money is used *here* and not *there*. It's all accounting nonsense. It makes absolutely no sense to separate the money into two piles and pretend the piles are non-overlapping; if that was all there was to it, the bishop could just take the (presumably much smaller) "bad" pile of money and use it as part of the "good" pile he's giving the guy, and the guy wouldn't be able to smoke any more. Problem solved!

 

If the man is addicted to tobacco (or alcohol, or anything else), then of course he "shouldn't" use the addictive stuff. But he does. And he is going to make it a priority to buy at least some of that stuff. If what he is addictively using is heroin or cocaine or alcohol, I think an argument can be made that any "enabling", even buying of rent and food, might be counterproductive. But with tobacco, I really don't think that argument holds much water.

 

Do we care about the guy or not? Do we want to help him or not? If we do, then I'm happy to leave to the bishop decisions about how much to worry about him buying cigs. I think I completely understand the other side of the argument, and I'm not without sympathy for it, but in the end I think the bishop has to make the call. If his call is to help the guy despite his cigarette buying, I'm all for it.

[Palerider]

Kinda curious how long the person has been on church assistance .... Church welfare is for sustaining life not a lifestyle

[Str8Shooter]

Kinda curious how long the person has been on church assistance .... Church welfare is for sustaining life not a lifestyle

 

Not to get off topic, but this is important too-

 

In my opinion, funds should not be allocated unless the individual has a plan that will lead to them not needing assistance.  The bishop can help with the plan and follow up to make sure it is being followed.  If it is a permanent disability, government and/or insurance benefits should be the primary means of income.

[Anddenex]

I just don't see how that conversation would sound... "Hi Bishop, I am the employer of Brother Doe, he mentioned that he was getting assistance from the church so I gave him a raise. Oh and I know he still smokes. Did you know either of those two things? I Just wanted you to be aware of those personal things to help you decide if you will continue to assist him" 

 

Anyhow, that's my take on it. One out of a million people. 

 

We may feel different; however, the conversation should be easy enough, "Hello bishop, my name is Andrew.  I employ Tim. Tim and I had a conversation regarding work and financial. I understand he has been receiving help. Over the course of my discussion with Tim we agreed upon a raise, which he now enjoys.  Thought this would be good information you would want to know. I am sure you are already familiar with his smoking habit. Either way, have a great day." All of the bishops in my ward would have been pleased with this information (Our bishops have usually been Transitory bishops, which I would assume you are familiar with -- the more information they have the better they are able to distribute funds).

 

As I mentioned previously, true story, and the conversation wasn't difficult, "Hello bishop, I understand this family requested assistance for Christmas.  Were you aware the father recently purchased $500 gift card for playing golf?" -- "No."  "Alright, well then, now you know.  Your the bishop, you have additional information."  -- "Thanks."  Conversation ended, nothing awkward.  Direct and to the point. 

 

Now the bishop has knowledge and with knowledge they can correctly issue funds appropriately.  Our desire to help, or if we want to help is moot.  Of course, we want to help, and every bishop wants to help, and I have never met a bishop that didn't appreciate additional knowledge regarding his flock.  They all have welcomed it, especially when it pertains to the extending of Church funds.

 

These are my thoughts. :)

Edited May 8, 2015 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

Not to get off topic, but this is important too-

 

In my opinion, funds should not be allocated unless the individual has a plan that will lead to them not needing assistance.  The bishop can help with the plan and follow up to make sure it is being followed.  If it is a permanent disability, government and/or insurance benefits should be the primary means of income.

 

I may be wrong; however, as to my understanding this is discouraged by our presiding authorities.  As to my knowledge, a plan only becomes a concern upon long term requests.

 

I believe the concept, it is already hard enough for a father/mother to request assistance (a pride hit) that leaders are encouraged to help without causing distress to the member who already is suffering. If assistance is requested  consecutively and repetitively then the bishop's are informed to dig a little deeper and then to offer plans; as now, it may no longer be an issue of sustaining life but a lifestyle as Palerider specified.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Anddenex

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Not necessarily so.  If we have information a bishop does not we are duty bound to inform the bishop of circumstances.  People abuse the Church and its welfare assistance, and with proper information bishops can make better or more educated decisions in accordance with revelation.

Yes, it doesn't matter where we work, if we are in the neighborhood or not, if we have information of possible abuse of sacred funds, we are duty bound to let it be known (privately with the bishop) and then let he who has stewardship to make the decision.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. This post is spot on.

 

I've had a bit of experience distributing Church funds, so I'd like to make a couple of points.

 

First, bishops aren't omniscient. 

They must rely on ward councils, home teachers, and individual ward members in order to stay informed. 

 

Second, there IS a great deal of fraud and abuse within the system, and I believe any bishop would be grateful for pertinent information in connection with the distribution of Church funds to those receiving them.

 

In regards to smoking, we once had a couple who had been receiving financial help from the Church for more than a year. He had a full time job but the pay was meager, they had a large debt load, and he simply didn't earn enough to make ends meet.

We regularly paid his utility bills and even paid his house payment a number of times.

It was common knowledge that both of them smoked.

They came in for a regular interview one day and the subject of cigarettes came up. They were asked point blank how much they spent on cigarettes in a month. The woman hung her head for a moment and then replied, "about a thousand dollars."

Excuse me!!

She then ran through the numbers explaining how much a pack cost and how many packs they smoked between the two of them, and yes, it came to about $1000 per month!

Not being a smoker and not even having a clue what a pack of cigs cost I was just blown away.

Here we were paying utility bills and sometimes mortgage payments almost every month, and these two were smoking away enough money to pay for it all with some left over.

Needless to say, the situation was unacceptable. 

A person could argue that they were smoking away their own money while the Church was only paying the bills, but in reality it's a distinction without a difference.

 

As for the OP, I believe  estradling's advice is correct. Mention it to the bishop (the odds are he already knows anyway), and then just leave it alone.

[NightSG]

She then ran through the numbers explaining how much a pack cost and how many packs they smoked between the two of them, and yes, it came to about $1000 per month!

Not being a smoker and not even having a clue what a pack of cigs cost I was just blown away.

 

Even at today's prices ($6/pack for Camel or Marlboro) that's close to 3 packs a day each, and when I started several brands were still around $2/pack.  Just finding something more productive to do with the time spent fishing out and lighting ~50 cigs a day each could have given them more income.

[PhilipJORourke]

An image of the Saviour writing in the dirt flashes through my mind. I would be inclined to trust in the wisdom of the bishop. After all, the bishop is the one called to receive revelation in these situations.

[jana7]

Hello italianstallion.........

 

First of all, you are very generous to give him a raise.

And your concerns are valid.  Have you prayed about

what to do?  I have found that praying, then staying

on my knees to get direction helps tremendously.

 

It' a touchy subject.....should you say something or not

to the bishop......      I had new friends join the church,

it took them over a year to completely give up marijuana.

But they did it finally.

 

Best wishes...................Let the Holy Spirit guide.......

Edited May 13, 2015 by jana7

[Litzy]

In most cases I would leave it to the bishop, but as others have said he isn't omniscient. The example of a thousand dollars a month  (not an uncommon mortgage payment) of cigarettes is something that should be brought up.

 

jana is right, though. Addictions are tough to beat and perhaps it wasn't the right situation for a bishop to declare "no more help until you've completely quite the cigarettes/drugs/alcohol/what have you".

 

I'd hope that if someone were collecting assistance while still being involved in an addictive substance the bishop would be getting them help to end the addiction.

 

If you think it's that bad and suspect the bishop has no clue, sure, I'd give one phone call and then wash my hands of it. But I lean toward the side of the bishop probably knows.