Error in tithing declaration.

I recently audited a ward where the Bishop recorded 2 members, who did not attend tithing settlement, as part tithe payers. In a later (Feb.) conversation with them, they indicated they were full tithe payers.

Should the Bishop correct the tithing report, and if so, how is this done.

Thanks for your help.

carlscpa wrote:Should the Bishop correct the tithing report, and if so, how is this done.

If the bishop feels the report should be updated, make the changes in MLS, resend it, and print it out again for your stake.

Thanks - I will pass this on to the Bishop.

I'm a bit confused. First, the audit does not require that you review the tithing statuses of members, so I'm not sure why you were even privy to that information. Second, having failed to self-declare, the members would not even be aware of what tithing status their bishop declared for them. Third, even if they were aware, that declared status affects them not at all. So what is the end goal for this process?

I would go with the "No, there's no need to change the report." But it's the bishop's call, and the process is as lajackson identified.

carlscpa wrote:I recently audited a ward where the Bishop recorded 2 members, who did not attend tithing settlement, as part tithe payers. In a later (Feb.) conversation with them, they indicated they were full tithe payers.

I can't imagine why you would be talking with those members about their tithing status. I certainly would hope that you did not share with them anything you learned in an audit, even if it was about them. The "LUFAS: Getting Started Guide for the Stake Auditor" reminds us: "Remember to keep all audit information strictly confidential."

aebrown wrote:

carlscpa wrote:I recently audited a ward where the Bishop recorded 2 members, who did not attend tithing settlement, as part tithe payers. In a later (Feb.) conversation with them, they indicated they were full tithe payers.

I can't imagine why you would be talking with those members about their tithing status. I certainly would hope that you did not share with them anything you learned in an audit, even if it was about them. The "LUFAS: Getting Started Guide for the Stake Auditor" reminds us: "Remember to keep all audit information strictly confidential."

Only the OP can clarify for certain but based on the statement given it's entirely possible that the conversation was between the bishop and the members and the bishop merely asked the auditor what to do because the auditor is considered an expert on financial matters.

eblood66 wrote:Only the OP can clarify for certain but based on the statement given it's entirely possible that the conversation was between the bishop and the members and the bishop merely asked the auditor what to do because the auditor is considered an expert on financial matters.

I suppose that's possible. The sentence in question unfortunately has a dangling modifier: "In a later (Feb.) conversation with them, they indicated they were full tithe payers." Literally that would mean that they talked to themselves, but clearly they must have been talking to someone else. Since there was no previous conversation mentioned, I assumed it was the auditor who participated in the "(Feb.) conversation," but I suppose it could have been the bishop. Those pesky English grammar rules actually serve a purpose in clear communication!

I did not audit the tithing declaration nor ask about it. The Bishop just mentioned it and wondered if he should correct it. I definitely did not speak with the members nor do I know their names.

carlscpa wrote:I did not audit the tithing declaration nor ask about it. The Bishop just mentioned it and wondered if he should correct it. I definitely did not speak with the members nor do I know their names.

Thanks for the clarification. I wondered the same thing.

No bishop ever wants to declare a member as not having paid a full tithing, though he will when he believes that is the case. In this instance, it appears the bishop did so, then later found out the members paid a full tithing, wants to correct the record, and was wondering if that could still be done, and it can.