LDS SECRET Leadership Information System (LIS)

In my October 2014 Exmormon Foundation talk, I told the audience about the LDS Leadership Information System, the LIS.  This is the system that probably vetted the latest candidates for the next three apostles which may be called in just over a week at the October 2015 LDS General Conference.

Here is the slide from that 2014 talk, where I verbalize a lot of information about the information systems the LDS use to vet future leaders. The slide is a fraction of what I said.

• Around 2008/09 the Q12 asked COB to produce a separate financial/contracts tracking system for contracts, which only Q12 and their assistants could access/monitor
• COB Insider speculation is that this “Leadership Information System” monitored nepotistic contracts given to Q12 family
• Another insider:  families and widows of GAs are financially blessed through church finance system

(Slide from the 2014 talk)

In my 2013 novel, I revealed some of what I had already known, but used a fictional form to let the world know, because my sources were anonymous.  Here's the text from 2013.

"Fellow SLCPD officers, including the non-Mormons, fondly referred to LDS security as Sacred Service agents. Over the years, Porter had helped the LDS Church with background investigations of individuals vetted for leadership—all off the books.  Salt Lake City government played nice with the Mormon Church. Most of the councilmen and police attended LDS Church regularly."

and

"Bradenton showed him the dossier of a few member employees and it had far more information than what he had accessed as a bishop.  It included all the church records of baptism, mission service, temple ordinances, and more. It showed scanned patriarchal blessings, callings held, discipline actions, employment history, background investigations, first generation family genealogy, and a geographical history of all locations the member had attended throughout their life.  Extra fields on one member file Bradenton brought up indicated that church headquarters filed the notes a bishop or stake president had made on worthiness. Porter never knew they filed individual private matters. 

“If you need to know anything about a member, you access the dossier system and search by any relevant term,” said Bradenton. “If further background information is done for employment or higher calling, we put it in here as well.” 

Porter pointed at the screen.  “Why does the church keep so much information members?”

“Wouldn’t you if you needed to know who you can trust to run companies within the portfolio owned by the church?  We need trust so there’s no financial disclosures. Enemies would use it against us.”  "

NOW THE LATEST:  A most recent revelation from an anonymous source inside LDS Church Offices (most of which was posted briefly on reddit) confirms this same information about the Leadership Information System.  The LDS Church keeps extensive background on all members, especially those that rise to be vetted for upper office in its corporation.  And why not?  

I quote extensively, and some of this may be verified in the next 10 days when LDS General Conference is held.  If not, then we have a wee chink in our link at the COB.

" Here's what I can tell you. There are enough people privy to this information that it won't be possible to identify me through this disclosure alone. 

Basically, whenever new General Authorities are being proposed, the names are submitted to our department to do a final "background check"--you can think of it as a kind of "vetting" that is done in politics when Presidential candidates select a VP running mate. We get information consents from the candidate and check everything imaginable: financial, employment, educational, resumes, church callings, political involvement, criminal (never had an issue with this one!), disciplinary councils the candidate has been involved in as a leader. We write up a report flagging any possible areas of concern. For the most part, there are no issues, except for occasional ones that might "look bad" from a secular media perspective. 

They never tell us that these people are being proposed as General Authorities--we just get a generic request for the vetting--but when the next General Conference roll around and we see the people we vetted called ... well, it doesn't take long to figure out what your role is in the machinery. 

Anyway, when an Apostle dies things get a little bit "obvious". For one, the request comes shortly after the death of the apostle. Secondly, rather than a bundle of names as is common to receive, we receive just three names. Thirdly, the submitted names usually contain one or more CURRENT General Authorities. All three of these are red flags to me at least that we are vetting the new Apostle. My suspicions in this regard were confirmed when we vetted Elder Anderson as one of the three candidates in late-2008, shortly after Joseph B. Wirthlin died, and he was subsequently called as the new Apostle in April 2009. I assume that the three names are submitted by the President of the Church, or possibly the First Presidency together, I don't know. 

I'm not exactly sure why we do a second "vetting" in this situation for someone who is already a General Authority and has undergone the process previously. I guess it's probably meant as a type of "fail safe" procedure, to catch anything that was possibly missed the first time around. We also do review what the person has done as their time as a General Authority and flag anything potentially problematic. 

So basically, what I can tell you is that we've recently received a fresh submission to do background checks for three men and we've mostly completed the process. All three are currently General Authorities and are in the Presidency or Quorums of the Seventy. The three are James J. Hamula, Ronald A. Rasband, and L. Whitney Clayton. Clayton's report sent up a few flags [2 & 3], definitely more than the other two, so I would bet against him being called. The reports for Hamula and Rasband were clean and we basically gave them both the thumbs up.  

[While others at the office could be vetting many candidates not listed here...]  At this stage, I see [it likely] that at least one of Hamula or Rasband is called. Since we have another vacancy in the Twelve, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Hamula and Rasband are BOTH called. I'm not sure if we are going to get another three names to vet for the second vacancy, or if they are just going to be happy with having done these three. 

So there you go. Oh--lastly the issue of timing--we won't find out for sure who is called until General Conference in October. I think that that is pretty well understood and accepted by the membership now. In the past, some Apostles have been called in between Conferences, but the last few First Presidencies have thought it best to wait until General Conference in order to maximize attention on the event. 

I find the process a little bit ridiculous and I have often felt like it's weird that the Prophet and First Presidency need us to flag issues of concern for them when they are considering inspired callings. Are the calls inspired? Well, Elder Clayton was being considered [for something], but now I can basically guarantee that he won't be called because of the work I participated in. Can it hardly be said to be inspiration when the decisions are based on paid workers doing research? "

You read it back in 2013 in my novel, and heard it again in 2014 in my talk.  The LIS of the LDS church help them to keep the LIES going.

Now is the day of their power.  They rule reign from the rivers to the ends of the earth. There is none who dares to molest or make afraid.