"anonymous Bishop" Blogs About Poverty

[readstoomuch]

Writing anonymously, as I am doing now, let`s one say all sorts of things that are hard to prove or truly be held responsible for.  

 

I think we can do more for the poor and I think self-reliance is a key component of that.  Our ward raised food for the food bank that goes to children who don`t have food on the weekends.  My wife and I deliver the food and we asked them if there was more that our congregation could do.  There was mentoring, helping with reading papers, athletics, and big brothers/sisters.  They all came up and we are in the process of trying to get this off the ground.  The missionaries go with us and I think it is good publicity and experience for them.  Since, they don`t have enough proselyting this service is helpful and good for their souls.  We are having some problems in getting the mission on board.  There are boundary problems, elders have to have three sisters to ride in the car and three sisters three brethren to go.  If I can`t go, my wife tries to get the sisters from a nearby ward, but they have to get permission to leave their area and sometimes the missionaries don`t seem that excited.  Some of them are over the top with enthusiasm and some seem more than happy to not have to leave their apartment or to go to the library all the time.  

 

The mission rules really don`t give them much flexibility.  The rules and mission statement are all centered around proselyting.   There is a new program called JustServe where the missionaries take part in more service.  If the energy and time of the missionaries could be combined with member efforts there is so much that could be done.  I have been delivering the food for about three months and I have been trying to get the mission and wards around me involved.  It is agonizingly slow to get the beauracracy to move.  

 

Missionaries are going to start doing Facebook contacting and proselyting, but service is going to have to a big part of the equation in the United States.  I think we will be better for it and I am convinced that our proselyting will improve and grow.  We teamed up with some other churches and organizations for the food drive.  It could be such a great thing for all.  

[BCSpace]

I pretty much agree with the blogger.

Sacrifice all that we have for the sake of others. That's what I want to be a part of.

 

As long as you don't force others to follow suit.  Otherwise, you'd be in conflict with official LDS doctrine; specifically, the Law of Consecration (whose fundamental principle is private property):

 

President Lorenzo Snow emphasized the importance of individual agency in moving forward the work of consecration: “In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the Spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principles of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. Some of us are practising in the spirit of the United Order, doing more than the law of tithing requires.” (In Journal of Discourses, 19:346.)

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng

 

[BCSpace]

The latest blog post by "Anonymous Bishop" seems to be getting a lot of attention on my Facebook feed...

 

http://anonymousbishop.com/?p=118

 

I'd even go so far as to say that this bishop is teaching the false doctrine of money throwing, that simply throwing money at the poor or offering unlimited free services is going to solve the problem.

[rockpond]

Is this agreeing with Elder Holland? I think not, it is dismissing his honesty...and recognition of his own privilege. And yeah...I totally think of consecration when I think of Elder Holland not experiencing poverty. Cause he obviously has no education or skills to make a living in the public sector. Non sequitur much?

How is anyone supposed to take him seriously while he thinks $250, which could feed the black children he uses to criticize the church with for some time, is equivalent to bankruptcy. He totally doesn't get that just having a car is an advantage the kids he uses won't ever have. Being "broke" is not anywhere near the poverty he thinks he is talking about...there is such obliviousness it should be embarrassing. I'd like to see him talk to these emaciated children about the horrors of bankruptcy.

A lack of simplistic, self absorbed thinking in favor of conclusions based on statistical analysis. And they didn't need to use even one picture of starving children to make their point. BTW, if this guy even bothered to talk to anyone who is running organizations that try to get protein supplements to kids, for example, he would be aware of the road blocks. If there is even an infrastructure that makes help possible, the kids have to be willing to eat the stuff and the parents have to give it to them. This guy is ignorant and irresponsible.

You seem to be guilty of doing to "anon bishop" the same thing that you accuse him of doing to Elder Holland: decontextualizing and inferring a conclusion that the author didn't imply. And, yes, I think that part of Anon Bishop's treatment of Elder Holland was incorrect just as I feel your treatment of Anon Bishop is incorrect.

You didn't really identify anything in the Cumorah.com article that contradicted what Anon Bishop wrote.

Finally, are you suggesting that there is no way to help feed hungry kids in Africa?

[rockpond]

I'd even go so far as to say that this bishop is teaching the false doctrine of money throwing, that simply throwing money at the poor or offering unlimited free services is going to solve the problem.

Except he didn't suggest such a thing.

[rockpond]

You certainly have some interesting Facebook friends.

It seems to me that he's trying to apply Elder Marx's words to our works as a church, and for the same end: to create contention that can then be used to subvert the prevailing social order.

Yes, my Facebook friends seem less judgemental of the blog author than most of the responders here on this thread. I guess that makes them "interesting".

Marxism? Subverting the prevailing social order? It's just an opinion piece.

[rockpond]

It's not his stewardship to apply Elder Hollands words to the whole church. His stewardship is to his ward calling and family. What is he doing personally for the poor in his area?

He didn't claim any stewardship.

[rockpond]

Writing anonymously, as I am doing now, let`s one say all sorts of things that are hard to prove or truly be held responsible for.

I think we can do more for the poor and I think self-reliance is a key component of that. Our ward raised food for the food bank that goes to children who don`t have food on the weekends. My wife and I deliver the food and we asked them if there was more that our congregation could do. There was mentoring, helping with reading papers, athletics, and big brothers/sisters. They all came up and we are in the process of trying to get this off the ground. The missionaries go with us and I think it is good publicity and experience for them. Since, they don`t have enough proselyting this service is helpful and good for their souls. We are having some problems in getting the mission on board. There are boundary problems, elders have to have three sisters to ride in the car and three sisters three brethren to go. If I can`t go, my wife tries to get the sisters from a nearby ward, but they have to get permission to leave their area and sometimes the missionaries don`t seem that excited. Some of them are over the top with enthusiasm and some seem more than happy to not have to leave their apartment or to go to the library all the time.

The mission rules really don`t give them much flexibility. The rules and mission statement are all centered around proselyting. There is a new program called JustServe where the missionaries take part in more service. If the energy and time of the missionaries could be combined with member efforts there is so much that could be done. I have been delivering the food for about three months and I have been trying to get the mission and wards around me involved. It is agonizingly slow to get the beauracracy to move.

Missionaries are going to start doing Facebook contacting and proselyting, but service is going to have to a big part of the equation in the United States. I think we will be better for it and I am convinced that our proselyting will improve and grow. We teamed up with some other churches and organizations for the food drive. It could be such a great thing for all.

Great points. I agree that we'd likely see positive results if we got more involved in community service.

I'm working on this with my own ward but it has been an uphill battle. The ward mission leader and full-time missionaries aren't all that interested because it doesn't support their current mission goals. Understandable from that perspective. Other auxiliaries feel overloaded with their respective responsibilities and support of the stake "focus points" which do not include community service.

But, we're moving forward with it slowly and seeing great results.

[juliann]

You seem to be guilty of doing to "anon bishop" the same thing that you accuse him of doing to Elder Holland: decontextualizing and inferring a conclusion that the author didn't imply. And, yes, I think that part of Anon Bishop's treatment of Elder Holland was incorrect just as I feel your treatment of Anon Bishop is incorrect.

You didn't really identify anything in the Cumorah.com article that contradicted what Anon Bishop wrote.

Finally, are you suggesting that there is no way to help feed hungry kids in Africa?

 

Come on Rock, that last one is a derail if I ever saw one. And the bishop didn't imply. He out and out said that renting out schools for church would somehow translate into feeding hungry kids.  It is a lazy and self-indulgent approach. Nobody has the corner on caring. But when all you can do is "not brag" about filling up an empty fridge while demanding all kinds of stuff he clearly knows nothing about while using kids to score points, it is kind of disgusting. Maybe he can use  pictures of 8 year old sex slaves next time while he talks about how somebody touched him once.

[The Nehor]

As long as you don't force others to follow suit.  Otherwise, you'd be in conflict with official LDS doctrine; specifically, the Law of Consecration (whose fundamental principle is private property):

We all know that we have the right to reject commandments. Not sure why you would think people don't believe this.

[Calm]

"Some of the homes in my neighborhood are empty and even bigger than our local meetinghouse"

So he lives in an extremely wealthy neighbourhood which implies that even if his own house isn't that big it is likely expensive just by being in that location. And he more than likely is not required to live there and pay that much but chose to do so instead of choosing a less expensive area where he could donate the difference to those in need.

I am never that impressed by those who scold others for not doing stuff they don't do themselves. Why doesn't he live in a small house or rental unit instead of where he lives? Does he invite the homeless to use his shower or let it stand unused for the vast majority of time....how many showers per person does he have in his home, etc.

Good for him for filling one frig one time, but did he ever do that again for the woman since it sounded like it was an ongoing problem he was now aware of?

[Avatar4321]

Yes, my Facebook friends seem less judgemental of the blog author than most of the responders here on this thread. I guess that makes them "interesting".

Marxism? Subverting the prevailing social order? It's just an opinion piece.

why do you think we are being judgmental by rejecting his attempts to steady the ark and criticize our leaders? Why do you think we should just sit here and embrace apostasy?

[Alan]

I have followed this thread with interest.

In my view the "anonymous bishop" has some reasonable points but perhaps overplays them a little.

I think many in the church agree that the City Creek development was probably not our finest hour, but I have to say I have found no problem meeting the needs of the poor and needy in my ward with welfare funds. In fact, at a training session we were told by a church employee from the area office not to worry regarding welfare payments and the amounts involved. He said the fund was practically inexhaustible - a bottomless purse.

 

The way I work it is if someone comes to me for financial help, I immediately assume they are telling me the truth and respond accordingly. In fact, I like to be as generous as I can be because I find people sometimes understate the problem a little because they are embarrassed or feel uncomfortable.

It's only when I discover evidence that I have been misled that I rein in any assistance.

 

We must also remember that the "poor and needy" includes those who are poor in spirit too. We're not just talking about pounds, shillings and pence here.

 

So while the "anonymous bishop" perhaps has a good theoretical point, in practice it appears to be a non-issue.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Alan

[Tacenda]

I have followed this thread with interest.

In my view the "anonymous bishop" has some reasonable points but perhaps overplays them a little.

I think many in the church agree that the City Creek development was probably not our finest hour, but I have to say I have found no problem meeting the needs of the poor and needy in my ward with welfare funds. In fact, at a training session we were told by a church employee from the area office not to worry regarding welfare payments and the amounts involved. He said the fund was practically inexhaustible - a bottomless purse.

The way I work it is if someone comes to me for financial help, I immediately assume they are telling me the truth and respond accordingly. In fact, I like to be as generous as I can be because I find people sometimes understate the problem a little because they are embarrassed or feel uncomfortable.

It's only when I discover evidence that I have been misled that I rein in any assistance.

We must also remember that the "poor and needy" includes those who are poor in spirit too. We're not just talking about pounds, shillings and pence here.

So while the "anonymous bishop" perhaps has a good theoretical point, in practice it appears to be a non-issue.

This is good to know!! I'll continue paying fast offerings.

About the billboards in Times Square... ..it's a hang up I have, that I'll just have to get over.

[Kenngo1969]

This is good to know!! I'll continue paying fast offerings.

About the billboards in Times Square... ..it's a hang up I have, that I'll just have to get over. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969].

One of many?

[rodheadlee]

He didn't claim any stewardship.

No Kidding! He just spends so many words criticizing those who have stewardship. It's my experience that those that complain the most do the least. I ask again. What is he doing about it personally? Has he invited any homeless into his home?

[rodheadlee]

In 3rd world countries the Church buildings supply shelter from the storm, literally.

[bcuzbcuz]

The latest blog post by "Anonymous Bishop" seems to be getting a lot of attention on my Facebook feed...

 

http://anonymousbishop.com/?p=118

 

I thought that some here might be interested in his take on Elder Holland's recent Gen Con address.

I totally agree with the comments from "anonymous bishop". I, too, was bothered by the sign posted inside the temple grounds that stated we, the temple patrons, “should not give to panhandlers”. My wife gives, whenever she has money in her pocket, or purse (We live in a plastic, paypal, world). No, of course it doesn't solve "the problem", and yes, there are pretentious free loaders who abuse people's generosity, but it's not out duty to judge. Some of the people we see,"begging for hand-outs" are truly in need.

 

"The poor will always be with us?" The pretty well defines our work for the 80 odd years we're here on this planet.

 

The country I live in has just been thrown into political turmoil when the ruling party failed to obtain a majority for its financial budget. The party that holds the dangling sword over the knot is the ultra-right neo-nazi party. The SD party has a solution for panhandlers, for those that beg, those that play the accordion on the street corners, any foreigners that "don't fit in". We're all acquainted with their solution. God help us if their party wins.

[bluebell]

I totally agree with the comments from "anonymous bishop". I, too, was bothered by the sign posted inside the temple grounds that stated we, the temple patrons, “should not give to panhandlers”. My wife gives, whenever she has money in her pocket, or purse (We live in a plastic, paypal, world). No, of course it doesn't solve "the problem", and yes, there are pretentious free loaders who abuse people's generosity, but it's not out duty to judge. Some of the people we see,"begging for hand-outs" are truly in need.

"The poor will always be with us?" The pretty well defines our work for the 80 odd years we're here on this planet.

The country I live in has just been thrown into political turmoil when the ruling party failed to obtain a majority for its financial budget. The party that holds the dangling sword over the knot is the ultra-right neo-nazi party. The SD party has a solution for panhandlers, for those that beg, those that play the accordion on the street corners, any foreigners that "don't fit in". We're all acquainted with their solution. God help us if their party wins.

The church is following other organizations who work directly with the poor when they advise people not to give to panhandlers.

I've worked with the Salvation Army and different homeless shelters and the policy is always the same-PLEASE do not give to panhandlers, it makes things worse not better.

I think there is always room to listen to the spirit and occasionally give, but it should not be happening regularly if our goal is to actually help. We need to instead donate to the programs and facilities that understand the problem.

Not speaking of you and your wife personally, but too often people give to panhandlers to make themselves feel less guilty or feel like they've done their duty to the poor and not so much because they want what is best for the person begging.

But having said all that I have given to panhandlers before. It's hard to walk by people who appear to (and sometimes actually do) need help.

Edited December 4, 2014 by bluebell

[rockpond]

No Kidding! He just spends so many words criticizing those who have stewardship. It's my experience that those that complain the most do the least. I ask again. What is he doing about it personally? Has he invited any homeless into his home?

Well, he's been criticized on this thread for boasting of one example of something that he did for the poor. I suppose he could share more examples and be subject to more criticism.

Regarding his post and your claim that he's complaining about something that is not his stewardship... When we see something that concerns us, should we just all remain silent?

[rockpond]

In 3rd world countries the Church buildings supply shelter from the storm, literally.

Yes. And they are also much simpler in design and finish.

[rockpond]

I have followed this thread with interest.

In my view the "anonymous bishop" has some reasonable points but perhaps overplays them a little.

I think many in the church agree that the City Creek development was probably not our finest hour, but I have to say I have found no problem meeting the needs of the poor and needy in my ward with welfare funds. In fact, at a training session we were told by a church employee from the area office not to worry regarding welfare payments and the amounts involved. He said the fund was practically inexhaustible - a bottomless purse.

The way I work it is if someone comes to me for financial help, I immediately assume they are telling me the truth and respond accordingly. In fact, I like to be as generous as I can be because I find people sometimes understate the problem a little because they are embarrassed or feel uncomfortable.

It's only when I discover evidence that I have been misled that I rein in any assistance.

We must also remember that the "poor and needy" includes those who are poor in spirit too. We're not just talking about pounds, shillings and pence here.

So while the "anonymous bishop" perhaps has a good theoretical point, in practice it appears to be a non-issue.

I do think that he overplays things somewhat in his post. And in my calling I get to personally witness some of the amazing things we do with fast offerings. It's beautiful. He should have highlighted more the the good.

But if, in practice, it's a non-issue... What do you make of the Liahona Foundation's claims of all the LDS children who go hungry?

[rockpond]

why do you think we are being judgmental by rejecting his attempts to steady the ark and criticize our leaders? Why do you think we should just sit here and embrace apostasy?

Is that sarcasm?

If not, it seems that you answered your own question.

[stemelbow]

I'm going to go ahead and clarify my feelings on that matter. I know most here will not like my feelings at all, but what can I say. We're all different and we're all a little inflicted with personal biases.

I would rather live desperately for other people. I try in a sense, but not really. I live my life, often, hoping to help others most of which don't need my help. Others suffer all over this world and I feel like I can't do a thing about it. But I'm stuck. I have four young kids and want the most for them,and my wife. I go to work so I can have money to pay for our house and get health insurance. Life hits ya in so many ways. You just do it because you're supposed to. Then someone you love gets sick, stress settles in and makes you feel crazy. Nothing gets paid for and debt increases forever and ever. And your alone. Meanwhile your kids eat, have clothes, get educated and your desperately trying to survive rather than live for others. Every month I struggle to pay for our life. It's tiring and my wife is just as tired. Debts are so huge we can't even see the end of it. Each dollar we spend to eat out or to go on vacation is a waste. But we're told, we need a life. All I do is pay tithing then pay bills, it seems. Money doesn't mean anything. I give more than I am asked even if it means our debts only get bigger sometimes. Why? Because who cares? I'll die. If I don't I'll get shunned at Church anyway, which I pretty much am for my unorthodox views already.

Most of my friends in the same income bracket look at us and think we're miserable. We don't live luxurious lives like they do. We can't because we have things forced upon us. But that's ok. Not even my concern. my concern is we're stuck. My great desire is to live for others desperately. I'd pack up and move to the most economically depressed place in this world, just so I don't feel so exalted by being in my cushy situation. At least I can dwell witht he lowest of the low. But I have a family. My wife won't hear of that, and I get that. My kids would be miserable, but someone's kids have to be. Even if I could get my family to buy in, we have more debt here then is imaginable, in some cases put upon. And we owe more than the house is worth just for our mortgage. Our savings, as it was one day, is gone, depleted to nothing and we have no chance for recovery anyway. We're one bill away from going bankrupt, and with kids any moment something could happen sinking us.

But at least the Church is in good financial health. At least it gets my money so more temples are built, which is a good thing, at what seems to be top dollar expense.

I don't know there's a lot more that the Church can do. it does seem plausible to cut out so many of the expenses and just focus the income that church gets on giving to others. I'd bet dollars to donuts such a huge shift would be far more productive in terms of attracting people then sending out missionaries, and for crying aloud, giving desperately would totally make the historic issues seem so irrelevant. I feel strongly that is the case. I can't do a thing, I realize that. I'm stuck. But I would love to be a part of something that can do a thing. Call me apostate. Whine about how I'm evil for wanting to steady the ark. I don't care. That's my feelings on that matter. I won't be obnoxious about it, very few know my feelings on that matter. I don't know that what I'd like to see is possible. But I'll continue to hope and pray.

We may not do away with poverty or starvation, but we can desperately try. Seems reasonable to me.

[tonie]

When people start talking about the money, it gets difficult to communicate with them.   Money does not solve all problems.   Does the Church have enough money to build clean water wells and pipelines? Sure, I think it does.  Is simply building pipelines and wells within the teachings of "all thinks in wisdom and order"? I am not sure. 

 

So you build a clean water system, for a people who know nothing of clean water. Who then maintains the equipement and infrastructure? How many people have to be bribed to allow the clean water system to be built?

 

Throwing money at problems will not fix things on its own.