Elder Oaks' Address: Parental Immorality And Its Effects On Children

[Walden]

Personally, I find the following portion of Oaks talk to be rather ironic:

Worldwide, almost eight million children die before their fifth birthday, mostly from diseases both treatable and preventable.⁴ And the World Health Organization reports that one in four children have stunted growth, mentally and physically, because of inadequate nutrition.⁵ Living and traveling internationally, we Church leaders see much of this. The general presidency of the Primary report children living in conditions “beyond our imaginations.” A mother in the Philippines said: “Sometimes we do not have enough money for food, but that is all right because it gives me the opportunity to teach my children about faith. We gather and pray for relief, and the children see the Lord bless us.”⁶ In South Africa, a Primary worker met a little girl, lonely and sad. In faint responses to loving questions, she said she had no mother, no father, and no grandmother—only a grandfather to care for her.

I find it ironic for the simple fact that from 1985 - 2009, the LDS church donated $327.6 million in cash and $884.6 million in commodities of aid throughout 178 countries (information retrieved from the church's "LDS Services Fact Sheet" published by the church in 2009 but, curiously, no longer available at LDS.org).

Over that time period, that shakes out to about $50 million/year in humanitarian aid. Assuming that there is an average of 5,000,000 full tithe payers over those years, that works out to roughly $10 per year that is donated by the church to humanitarian efforts for each full-tithe payer.

If Oaks is so very concerned about the fact that "almost eight million children die before their fifth birthday, mostly from diseases both treatable and preventable.⁴ And the World Health Organization reports that one in four children have stunted growth, mentally and physically, because of inadequate nutrition," maybe he should petition the church to do more with the billions of dollars in "donations", i.e. tithing, that they receive each and every year. Heck, what good works could the church do to alleviate the conditions that Oaks describes above if they increased humanitarian aid to reflect annual donations of $25/year for each tithe paying member, rather than just the roughly $10?

[KevinG]

Walden your question assumes two things.

1) Throwing more money at a problem will solve it.

2) Tithing isn't already being funneled to domestic humanitarian aid (Bishop's storehouse, emergency assistance for families).

[KevinG]

Can you please link decline in birth rate to a higher rate of abortions

Try this (Birth rate without abortions - abortions = reduced rate of birth.

Other than that I don't get your post and I have read it three times now.

[sheilauk]

Personally, I find the following portion of Oaks talk to be rather ironic:

Worldwide, almost eight million children die before their fifth birthday, mostly from diseases both treatable and preventable.⁴ And the World Health Organization reports that one in four children have stunted growth, mentally and physically, because of inadequate nutrition.⁵ Living and traveling internationally, we Church leaders see much of this. The general presidency of the Primary report children living in conditions “beyond our imaginations.” A mother in the Philippines said: “Sometimes we do not have enough money for food, but that is all right because it gives me the opportunity to teach my children about faith. We gather and pray for relief, and the children see the Lord bless us.”⁶ In South Africa, a Primary worker met a little girl, lonely and sad. In faint responses to loving questions, she said she had no mother, no father, and no grandmother—only a grandfather to care for her.

I find it ironic for the simple fact that from 1985 - 2009, the LDS church donated $327.6 million in cash and $884.6 million in commodities of aid throughout 178 countries (information retrieved from the church's "LDS Services Fact Sheet" published by the church in 2009 but, curiously, no longer available at LDS.org).

Over that time period, that shakes out to about $50 million/year in humanitarian aid. Assuming that there is an average of 5,000,000 full tithe payers over those years, that works out to roughly $10 per year that is donated by the church to humanitarian efforts for each full-tithe payer.

If Oaks is so very concerned about the fact that "almost eight million children die before their fifth birthday, mostly from diseases both treatable and preventable.⁴ And the World Health Organization reports that one in four children have stunted growth, mentally and physically, because of inadequate nutrition," maybe he should petition the church to do more with the billions of dollars in "donations", i.e. tithing, that they receive each and every year. Heck, what good works could the church do to alleviate the conditions that Oaks describes above if they increased humanitarian aid to reflect annual donations of $25/year for each tithe paying member, rather than just the roughly $10?

Please. This is a fallacy. The UK Government gives billions in aid, plus there are several organisations which fund raise regulary in the UK and spend millions as well as other countries and yet the problems still exist - despite billions being spent over the last decades. It is easy to criticise the Church for not doing more - but the Church cannot and should not just deal with these problems. And ultimately, money hasn't solved anything. Until their own governments take responsibility, there will continue to be such distress. For example, if a country's leader doesn't believe AIDS exists and won't let medicine be distributed (as has happened), children will continue to be orphaned. It is not so simple as just giving money - do they live on benefits all their lives? It is a complex situation which requires complex solutions.

[tyler90az]

Did anybody else receive revelation that they should adopt when they can? It has been my desire to adopt when I have the means. There is so many kids out in the world that need to be adopted. I personally feel we could do more good if Latter-day Saints take this as a call to adopt. If every Latter-day Saint family adopted one child, this world would be a better place.

[KevinG]

It is not so simple as just giving money - do they live on benefits all their lives? It is a complex situation which requires complex solutions.

Perhaps is the missionary efforts were increased and more people lived the Gospel the need for humanitarian funds would be decreased?

[Walden]

Walden your question assumes two things.

2) Tithing isn't already being funneled to domestic humanitarian aid (Bishop's storehouse, emergency assistance for families).

I agree that the church does an admirable job of taking care of their own (their members).

I just find it ironic that Oaks speaks of all this distress among children in third-world countries, when the vastly wealthy institution of the LDS church donates a meager $10 per tithe-paying member per year to "humanitarian efforts" which presumably means efforts not tied to church membership.

[sheilauk]

Perhaps is the missionary efforts were increased and more people lived the Gospel the need for humanitarian funds would be decreased?

I think that would be one, very good part of the solution.

[tyler90az]

I agree that the church does an admirable job of taking care of their own (their members).

I just find it ironic that Oaks speaks of all this distress among children in third-world countries, when the vastly wealthy institution of the LDS church donates a meager $10 per tithe-paying member per year to "humanitarian efforts" which presumably means efforts not tied to church membership.

They need to be "doers and not hearers only." It would be ideal if they would back this talk up with a large donation to help children.

[Walden]

It is not so simple as just giving money - do they live on benefits all their lives? It is a complex situation which requires complex solutions.

No, the idea is not to have them live on benefits their entire lives.

The idea is to take the vast wealth of the LDS church and it's numerous holdings and use it to help build hospitals, schools, roads, sanitation services, training programs, etc. that can be used by citizens in third-world countries to help better their lives.

[KevinG]

In other words don't waste that costly ointment on the Savior's feet? Use it to build a hospital instead?

I'm pretty confident that the monies disbursed by the Presiding Bishopric and all local Bishops and Stake Presidents are carefully weighed and balanced against the global mission of the church and that the Lord has approved the expenditures.

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

The Church is not a charity. We do charitable work, but that is but one of our four fold mission.

[Walden]

In other words don't waste that costly ointment on the Savior's feet? Use it to build a hospital instead?

I'm pretty confident that the monies disbursed by the Presiding Bishopric and all local Bishops and Stake Presidents are carefully weighed and balanced against the global mission of the church and that the Lord has approved the expenditures.

No, you're right KevinG. I'm sure that the lord thought it better for the church to spend billions of dollars on a mall in downtown SLC than to build hospitals for malnourished, dying children in Africa. Yes, that sounds like the Jesus I read about in the New Testament.

[sheilauk]

And are you going to go to those countries to ensure that the governments allow you to build those hospitals, schools, road etc? Are you going to stop the warlords stealing everything and burning them down? should the church continue to pay forever the salaries of the doctors, nurses, teachers? Are you going to stop corruption, violence, discrimination in those countries? Buy goods from them? what about food and water? How do you provide that? Its not so simple. And $10 can provide a lot more in 'third world' countries than in the 'West'.

And its not ironic - its an accusation of hypocrisy.

Edited October 11, 2012 by sheilauk

[KevinG]

No, you're right KevinG. I'm sure that the lord thought it better for the church to spend billions of dollars on a mall in downtown SLC than to build hospitals for malnourished, dying children in Africa. Yes, that sounds like the Jesus I read about in the New Testament.

Cute sound bite but it completely ignores all of the discussions about wise investment, seed corn vs. eating corn, the role of the church and charitable contributions. etc. that you were involved in.

I find your sudden forgetfulness of all those discussions disingenuous.

[KevinG]

...and once again a perfectly good discussion is hijacked for the personal hobby horse of Walden.

Ironically this is a great illustration of why the church doesn't open its books up more fully. Knowledge of what we spend on financial charity (as opposed to the tons of treasure and time spent on service by missionaries and members alike) just causes heartburn among the arc steadiers because its not enough in their estimation. As if they have a clue what the available funds for fulfilling the complete mission of the church really are.

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

And if that investment in a mall brings in sufficient revenue for the Church to build that hospital in Africa, or train the nurses and doctors in that hospital, or the thousands of other things hospitals need. Where will you be then? My guess is that you'd find something else about the Church to complain about.

Edited October 11, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[KevinG]

When Christ returns it would be fun to see him walk into a restaurant at the City Creek Mall and have a glass of wine with his pork chop dinner just to blow peoples minds.

Of course the Savior is infinitely more charitable than I so that probably won't happen.

[Walden]

Walden:

And if that investment in a mall brings in sufficient revenue for the Church to build that hospital in Africa, or train the nurses and doctors in that hospital, or the thousands of other things hospitals need. Where will you be then? My guess is that you'd find something else about the Church to complain about.

If, if, if, if, if....we could go around and around about "if's" all day long. The church does not need revenues from the SLC mall to fund efforts in third world countries. The church has admitted that the financial return on their investment in this mall will be a minimal gain. The church is already sitting upon a vast empire of wealth due to their numerous holdings, and does not need the SLC mall for financial solvency, nor as a means to fund their humanitarian efforts. Either way, I won't be holding my breath that any gains will be used to "build that hospital in Africa, or train the nurses and doctors in that hospital, or the thousands of other things hospitals need," as you seem to presume. If previous actions are any indication, I might be holding my breath forever waiting for the LDS church to utilize it's vast wealth to adequately fund humanitarian efforts. Even by corporate standards, the LDS church gives much less, as a percentage of earnings, to humanitarian efforts than even the profit-driven, capitalistic corporate entities that have similar holdings as the church.

And KevinG, my intent was not to hijack the thread, but to just point out a tidbit of Oaks speech that smacked of irony to me. Would you prefer that everyone who comes to this board just keep any criticisms of the LDS church to themselves, so that defenders of the faith can pat one another on the back and prop one another up in a congratulatory echo-chamber of religious and/or moral superiority? I thought that was what Elders Quorum meetings were for.

[KevinG]

Would you prefer that everyone who comes to this board just keep any criticisms of the LDS church to themselves, so that defenders of the faith can pat one another on the back and prop one another up in a congratulatory echo-chamber of religious and/or moral superiority? I thought that was what Elders Quorum meetings were for.

No I would prefer critiques were reality based and not economically ignorant conspiracy rhetoric intended to cast dispersion on the wisdom and leadership ability of the Prophets and Elders of the Church and the education and enlightenment of the members.

Perhaps your neatly packaged pseudo intellectual scorn would be better propped up and congratulated at another less diverse web site that specializes in complaining about nits in the LDS Church? (sorry no ironic smiley face to soften my comments available at this time).

Edited October 11, 2012 by KevinG

[Walden]

No I would prefer critiques were reality based and not economically ignorant conspiracy rhetoric intended to cast dispersion on the wisdom and leadership ability of the Prophets and Elders of the Church and the education and enlightenment of the members.

Perhaps your neatly packaged pseudo intellectual scorn would be better propped up and congratulated at another less diverse web site that specializes in complaining about nits in the LDS Church? (sorry no ironic smiley face to soften my comments available at this time).

Reality based? My figures come from the church's own publications.

I would argue that one who suggests that a church who is conservatively worth tens of billions of dollars, yet annually shells out roughly 10 per tithe-paying member to humanitarian efforts for non-LDS members, is the one who is "economically ignorant," especially when their defense is essentially, "well, I trust those nice guys in SLC to properly manage church funds, and no, I don't require any accountability of how those funds are spent." And I'm the economically ignorant one?

[KevinG]

The ***

Reality based? My figures come from the church's own publications.

I would argue that one who suggests that a church who is conservatively worth tens of billions of dollars, yet annually shells out roughly 10 per tithe-paying member to humanitarian efforts for non-LDS members, is the one who is "economically ignorant," especially when their defense is essentially, "well, I trust those nice guys in SLC to properly manage church funds, and no, I don't require any accountability of how those funds are spent." And I'm the economically ignorant one?

Examples of economic ignorance:

The assumption that throwing money at a problem makes it less severe.

The assumption that you know the extent of charitable support the church gives worldwide and on a local level because you have a selected figure of what was spent in cash or in kind donations of material.

The assumption that the mission of the church can be fulfilled as well as it is now by changing the balance of investments in property holdings, disbursements, operations and charitable giving in your preferred manner.

Pretending (or forgetting) there have been multiple discussions about the churches investment in Downtown Salt Lake showing that it is an economically and morally good decision and spouting the same old class envy and greed rhetoric.

Pretending there is no accountability on the part of the Brethren because you don't personally have access to the books. (and look how responsible you are with the number you can access).

Yeah- a lot of assumptions reflecting ignorance not to mention the not so subtle implication that the folks in Salt Lake City don't know what they are doing.

Edited October 11, 2012 by KevinG

[The Grimace]

Try this (Birth rate without abortions - abortions = reduced rate of birth.

Other than that I don't get your post and I have read it three times now.

The point is, lower birth rate amongst 15-19 year old black girls is not necessarily correlated to an increase in abortion rates. First, you'd have to show an increase in the rate of abortions. Next, you'd have to show an increase in the rate of abortions amongst the target demographic, and third, you'd have to show that this is accountable for the observed drop in birth rate.

This is why I said that it is just as plausible that education, accessibility to birth control, Plan B, etc, are all bigger contributors.

[MiserereNobis]

I believe a lot of people against abortion consider morning-after pill as an abortifacient because it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.

Exactly. A fertilized egg is unnaturally/artificially, and by the intention of the mother, not allowed to live. It is an abortifacient.

[KevinG]

The point is, lower birth rate amongst 15-19 year old black girls is not necessarily correlated to an increase in abortion rates. First, you'd have to show an increase in the rate of abortions. Next, you'd have to show an increase in the rate of abortions amongst the target demographic, and third, you'd have to show that this is accountable for the observed drop in birth rate.

This is why I said that it is just as plausible that education, accessibility to birth control, Plan B, etc, are all bigger contributors.

Do your own homework next time. http://sparky.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html

RESULTS: In 2000, 21 out of every 1,000 women of reproductive age had an abortion. Women who are aged 18-29, unmarried, black or Hispanic, or economically disadvantaged—including those on Medicaid—have higher abortion rates. The overall abortion rate decreased by 11% between 1994 and 2000. The decline was greatest for 15-17-year-olds, women in the highest income category, those with college degrees and those with no religious affiliation. Abortion rates for women with incomes below 200% of poverty and for women with Medicaid coverage increased between 1994 and 2000. The rate of decline in abortion among black and Hispanic adolescents was lower than that among white adolescents, and the abortion rate among poor teenagers increased substantially.