Jump to content

We Appreciate The Help ... But Can'T Let Anyone Know It Came From Mormons


Kenngo1969

Recommended Posts

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53651373-78/storehouse-church-humpherys-lake.html.csp?page=3

I thought this part was absolutely hilarious:

During Hurricane Katrina, an older couple from Logan were sent to work at the bishop's storehouse in Slidell, La. The woman called Humpherys one day, upset. Another church group, she complained, was taking canned goods and plastering its own labels over those of the LDS Church.

[storehouse manager Richard] Humpherys asked her: "What's the real issue?"

People are hungry, she said. Right, he answered.

"It doesn't matter what it says on the outside," he told her. "It's what's inside - and inside your heart."

Well, gosh, we appreciate the help and all, but we can't let anyone know this food came from ... those evil Mormons! :rofl:

Link to comment

Well, thats how it works. They can lie to others, but they can't lie to themselves, or God.

That's what I would be tempted to ask the church leader responsible for the relabeling: "Aren't you bearing false witness?" He might reply, "I'm just lying for Jesus!" ;)

Link to comment
Well, gosh, we appreciate the help and all, but we can't let anyone know this food came from ... those evil Mormons!
Well, thats how it works. They can lie to others, but they can't lie to themselves, or God.
That's what I would be tempted to ask the church leader responsible for the relabeling: "Aren't you bearing false witness?" He might reply, "I'm just lying for Jesus!"

One is left to wonder who actually did the relabeling. There was too much for one man (or one family) to do alone.

So we ponder the effect of the blatant hypocrisy on those called upon to implement the plan. In two or ten years, when the missionaries knock on that door, will guilt rear its irrepressible head and demand they listen to the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Lehi

Link to comment
Is such a relabeling even legal?

"'People are hungry', she said. 'Right', he answered."

I agree: honesty, especially in a church, would be better. However, people were hungry, and getting food to them was (and should have been) a higher priority. Further, the Law is not a good way to make this point. Far better, in my mind, is to shine the light of truth on the offenders, but doing so in a low-key way would be the best alternative.

Lehi

Link to comment

Is such a relabeling even legal?

Probably not, but, as Lehi notes, litigating the issue would create more problems than it would solve.

Link to comment

One is left to wonder who actually did the relabeling. There was too much for one man (or one family) to do alone.

So we ponder the effect of the blatant hypocrisy on those called upon to implement the plan. In two or ten years, when the missionaries knock on that door, will guilt rear its irrepressible head and demand they listen to the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Lehi

Realistically? Probably not, but one never knows. For some few, it might. (There certainly have been cases in which people have been told the usual lies about the Church of Jesus Christ, which led them to wonder if the Church could possibly be that bad which, in turn, caused them to dig deeper in an effort to find the truth behind the lies. Perhaps a case such as this would be analogous to that.)

On the other hand, the easier it is to rationalize something (and candidly, their antipathy toward Mormons would make it easy for some non-Mormons to rationalize obscuring the real source of the aid in a case such as this) the less likely one is to feel guilt over it: "Yes, I lied, but I lied for Jesus. Mormonism is a dangerous cult, and Jesus wouldn't want anyone to feel well-disposed toward it, so my 'lie' served a higher purpose."

Link to comment

I agree with the sentiments of Richard.

I remember a story a few years back where a Local Salt Lake Baptist minister was coming to the Welfare Square in SLC (with the full blessing of the Bretheren to pick up food and deliver it to his several soup kitchens. I think the words of the Lord provide some wise council:

Luke 9

49 ¶And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is afor us.

Link to comment

Probably not, but, as Lehi notes, litigating the issue would create more problems than it would solve.

Canned goods that are produced for commercial distribution (that does not mean for sale) need to be labeled with the name of the product, nutritional information, and the name of the producer/distributor. There are some exceptions, but they are very few. Relabeling would be a violation of federal law.

Link to comment

Canned goods that are produced for commercial distribution (that does not mean for sale) need to be labeled with the name of the product, nutritional information, and the name of the producer/distributor. There are some exceptions, but they are very few. Relabeling would be a violation of federal law.

But, as Lehi pointed out (and I agree with him), launching such a charge would create more problems than it would solve. Meek submission is not my default position when things such as this happen to me, personally, and I'm always tempted to feel indignation on the Church's behalf when they happen to my faith. That said, we're already dealing with a group, at least some of the members of which are so ill-disposed to the Church that they're reticent to do even so much as to admit where the aid they're distributing actually came from. Making a (quite literal!) federal case out of it wouldn't do the Church any favors: it wouldn't engender the sort of good will the Church tries hard to promulgate, and in the minds of many, it would be a case of the Big, Bad Mormon Church as a whole (aka LDS Inc. ) "picking on" a Christian ;) group. Could (and would) the Church win if it were to invoke federal law in this situation? Most likely. But winning a court battle (no matter how big the "victory") wouldn't be worth losing the public relations war.

I wonder exactly how the relabeling was accomplished. I wonder if those responsible might've decided that removing the original label before affixing a new one would've been too much work, and so the new, bearing-false-witness label was simply affixed over the original. I wonder, despite such efforts at obfuscation, did anyone see the original label? "What's this? This can has two labels on it! What does the label underneath this one say? Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- ... Quick, honey! Load up the kids in the car! We've got to go to the hospital where they can induce vomiting! We just ate some Mormon peaches!" :rofl:

Link to comment

I agree with the sentiments of Richard.

I remember a story a few years back where a Local Salt Lake Baptist minister was coming to the Welfare Square in SLC (with the full blessing of the Bretheren to pick up food and deliver it to his several soup kitchens. I think the words of the Lord provide some wise council:

Luke 9

49 ¶And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is afor us.

We often interpret the admonition to avoid doing our alms before men to apply to individuals, but this is a case in which it applies to the Church as a whole:

Matthew 6 (KJV)

1 Take heed that ye do not your balms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Link to comment

I think this is just another rumour -- third hand stuff.

Let's see, someone is taking massive amounts of food delivered by the church, they printed up their own labels, and replaced the labels with their own. This scenario is just not very plausible, but makes a great story. Another "bad guy" story on how the church is persecuted. I think the church has safeguards against someone simply driving off with cases of food.

But it must be true, since it was printed in the SL Tribune.

Link to comment

Must it be trumpeted from the street corners every time mormons do something?

No, and as far as I know, no one is saying that it must (see my post above). "Trumpet[ing] it from the street corners" is one thing. Lying about who actually did it is another.

"It doesn't matter what it says on the outside," he told her. "It's what's inside - and inside your heart."

Words to live by[.]

No argument there.

Link to comment

I think this is just another rumour -- third hand stuff.

Let's see, someone is taking massive amounts of food delivered by the church, they printed up their own labels, and replaced the labels with their own. This scenario is just not very plausible, but makes a great story. Another "bad guy" story on how the church is persecuted. I think the church has safeguards against someone simply driving off with cases of food.

But it must be true, since it was printed in the SL Tribune.

I'd like to address your objection, but I'm not sure I understand it. Are you saying that the sister who called Salt Lake from Louisiana to complain about the relabeling was lying?

Are you saying that the storehouse manager, Bro. Humpherys, is lying in his recounting of what the sister said?

Are you saying that the Tribune's reporting of either (or both) of these events is suspect? Why? (I often take reporting by the Tribune regarding the Church with a grain of salt, but I'm struggling to understand why you think I should do that in this case.)

And as for your allegation that anyone said someone simply "[drove] off with cases of food," I'm not sure where that's coming from, either. If the Church turns food over to another organization for distribution, as apparently happened in this case, it has no control over what happens to the food following the turnover. Given that, I'm not sure why you think the account of the relabeling is suspicious.

Your enlightenment is welcome.

Link to comment

Regardless of who did (or did not) put a label on the food makes me want to understand their motivation. I thought that as Christians, we are to give in the spirit of Mathew 6:3 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing". Perhaps the labels put over the food, were put there to direct folks to more support? Or perhaps there was another significant reason and I should not be casting judgement....but man it is way too easy to judge others (another thing to overcome). Looks like Humpherys had a Christ like attitude about the situation...kudo's to him.

Link to comment

Regardless of who did (or did not) put a label on the food makes me want to understand their motivation. I thought that as Christians, we are to give in the spirit of Mathew 6:3 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing".

Indeed. See my Post #14.

[Perhaps] the [labels] put over the food where put there to direct folks to more support?

Perhaps, but it seems to me that there are less deceptive ways of accomplishing that end. And, the Church's disinclination to make a federal case of it notwithstanding, I would encourage someone who wished to accomplish that end to do so in a way that doesn't violate federal law.

Or perhaps there was another significant reason and I should not be casting judgement....bu[t] man it is way too easy to judge others (another thing to overcome). Looks like Humpherys had a Christ like attitude about the situation...[kudos] to him.

Perhaps, but again, I would encourage use of measures which are intended to accomplish that presumably legitimate, significant end ... but do not violate federal law. Completely relabeling the cans seems a rather extreme measure to take if one is trying to accomplish some end other than obscuring the source of the aid.

Link to comment

Indeed. See my Post #14.

Perhaps, but it seems to me that there are less deceptive ways of accomplishing that end. And, the Church's disinclination to make a federal case of it notwithstanding, I would encourage someone who wished to accomplish that end to do so in a way that doesn't violate federal law.

Perhaps, but again, I would encourage use of measures which are intended to accomplish that presumably legitimate, significant end ... but do not violate federal law. Completely relabeling the cans seems a rather extreme measure to take if one is trying to accomplish some end other than obscuring the source of the aid.

Sorry, I did not see your post. I was reading from my Iphone and I thought I read through all the posts. Turns out I missed about 10 of them :mega_shok:

Link to comment

Sorry, I did not see your post. I was reading from my Iphone and I thought I read through all the posts. Turns out I missed about 10 of them :mega_shok:

No sweat. Technology is wonderful ... most of the time! :D

Link to comment

No sweat. Technology is wonderful ... most of the time! :D

Thanks for your grace and for helping with my spelling. I need to slow down sometimes and double check what I write...even then I need help :crazy:

Link to comment

Thanks for your grace and for helping with my spelling. I need to slow done sometimes and double check what I write...even then I need help :crazy:

Don't let my compulsive editing turn you off. It's kind of an OCD thing with me! :D

Link to comment

Don't let my compulsive editing turn you off. It's kind of an OCD thing with me! :D

I see that you restrained yourself from correcting my latest error ... {done}

Bless ya!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...