"anonymous Bishop" Blogs About Poverty

[Mystery Meat]

Yes, absolutely, assuming your caveat there is correct.  Otherwise you are just requiring that someone else's faith in God matches your faith in God to be complete.

 

Agreed. So the important question is are we led by prophets right now. If the answer is no, I don't know why we are here. I believe that the answer is a strong yes, and so I think I am saying I don't think his faith is as strong as it could be.

[Calm]

That is awesome.

Every year for Christmas everyone in my family has to do some kind of service and then we each share what we did on Christmas Eve. Sometimes it is difficult though to find service to do.

Already this year I have emailed (their preferred form of communication) about 8 different places offering to volunteer and I haven't heard back from any of them.

I would love to find something that I could continue to do the whole year.

Come down and volunteer at our Bishop's Storehouse, they are short volunteers for some reason right now.  It is only a couple of hours drive after all.

[Avatar4321]

I think you are making some unjustified extrapolations.  The "bishop" may believe in God's ability to send prophets.  He might just believe that the current group has derailed.

sounds like apostasy to me

[bluebell]

Come down and volunteer at our Bishop's Storehouse, they are short volunteers for some reason right now. It is only a couple of hours drive after all.

I wish it was closer! Our ward often works at the cannery but the shifts we are supposed to fill are all in the middle if the night (the last one began at 3 am) and that's just not possible with two babies at home during the day.

I found something on "justServe" in bountiful and I sent a message asking for more info. Here's to hoping this one actually gets back to me!

[BlueDreams]

My problem with the ideas he expresses is pretty simple. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean that as nicely as my tired self can muster, but he is one small piece to a very large and elaborate puzzle. 

 

My own small piece (which is knowing some basics about the humanitarian work done and seeing on a ground-base scale of how money is handled in the church) leaves me extremely hesitant to critique how the church allocates resources. For example the overhead costs for the humanitarian services they have is ridiculously minuscule. I can't emphasize just how tiny it it. I was once in a class (my minor was international development) comparing the humanitarian-specific arm of the church to other well known and good charities and when I say tiny, I mean almost non-existent. I thought the presenter had made a typo, it was so small.  What I've seen of the care and abject caution used for any expenditure dealing with tithing gives me enough confidence that I don't worry much about the spending. The church runs in a way to work to reduce cost, give quality and sustainable products and projects for both members and the surrounding community, and invest in ways that are both balanced and usually pay off. I won't say they do it perfectly, because I'm sure the church doesn't. But their methodology is one that I DO find astoundingly well thought out, thorough, responsible and about as close to perfect as I could expect. 

 

My other concern is just how limited the view of what humanitarian work is and how complex the services offered with the church are. He mentions his concerns about temples, churches, proselyting tools, and...well frankly It's kinda all over the place. It falls on the list of pet peeves when it comes to beliefs about charity. Large sweeping criticism of a current system (a fairly well functioning with methods to correct and double check for efficiency in delivery of services.....this (sadly) puts the church ahead of a lot of other initiatives), with a simplified methodology to do...what exactly, I'm not sure. Eradicate poverty among us I guess? But his methods wouldn't even come close to doing that.

 

The bottom half of his critique is based on an unfounded assumption about how Holland paid for his Yale degree. He uses other unfounded assumptions or half-assertions to move this forward. Frankly, the more I look at it the more it feels like a smoke and mirrors trick. Where he utilizes heavy criticism to the current system (some of which may or may not even be accurate), and leaving a poorly constructed alternative plan just kinda, sorta there. One based heavily on the distribution of money. Which in my mind is international development 101 that just how much is spent does not equal better services. When he sits and tells me it'll cost 10k to build a school I think about all the other details money doesn't buy: who will teach it? who will pay for the supplies? will those supplies be in their native language or the dominate language of whatever country they're in? Will the education be western based or focus on the actual needs and desires of the local populations to actually build up the community? Will there be enough incentives to keep the children in school for the parents, especially for the girls? What other structural problems outside of the school could lead to problems with maintaining the school or actually leading to lasting change for the area? etc.

 

 

He makes it seem like a walk in the park to do more meaningful charity. But it's not. What I like about the church is that their major thrust to me is community development not just services and helping-hands. They build an infrastructure which allows their efforts to actually have immediate effect. Whereas fly-by fixes don't work. His critique, to me, reads more like we should give up the infrastructure and throw all (or at least a big percentage) of our money into helping the poor (in the ways that he deems are truly helpful), ignoring just how that infrastructure is needed to do exactly that. The strength of the church's service is just how much of it is volunteers and based on its capacity to work both in a large and grass-roots scale. Focusing solely in one or the other doesn't make as much of an impact....it just sounds and feels good.

 

I'm a little too worn to explain or dig further into my critique of this. But overall I find this article shallow and haphazard in its solutions. I find it's criticisms both poorly constructed, holey, shallow, and overall sketchy to say the least. And though I'm sure the church can improve, I trust it enough to do just that in a manner that maintains sustainability, works to directly effect and change immediate lives. And unless I'm willing to dig myself into the system and work to know better the ins and outs I don't feel I have the know how and right to overly criticize it. Bringing my own concerns or interests is one thing, I feel this article moved beyond that. I could go on,  but I won't.

 

 

I probably won't be able to reply too much back to this either....I'm supposed to be writing a few papers for a Master's Degree (one of the first in my family that can only afford to minimally help me) at a university that's partially tithing funded, with some of the overhead taken care of by that fundraising he demonizes (or at least doesn't put in high regard) so that I, the student, won't drown in student debt for decades, like most US students. A degree that entails hundreds of hours (per student) of dirt cheap therapy for individuals and families open to the community to better manage their lives and that has entailed training and sharing of ideas internationally to Taiwan for their social services and outreach in their communities. All so that I can become a therapist and serve my community in a way that allows me the space to become debt-free in 2-3 years and have expendable resources to allow for me to serve my own community both in money and time. But of course almost none of that would be noted as humanitarian enough by this guy's standard. Which is a problem, in my book.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

I wish it was closer! Our ward often works at the cannery but the shifts we are supposed to fill are all in the middle if the night (the last one began at 3 am) and that's just not possible with two babies at home during the day.

I found something on "justServe" in bountiful and I sent a message asking for more info. Here's to hoping this one actually gets back to me!

I assume there is a Storehouse along with the cannery, call them outside the ward and just see if they need help stocking shelves or something like that if this other thing doesn't pan out.  At our Storehouse you can go down anytime to help with stocking.

[juliann]

I wish it was closer! Our ward often works at the cannery but the shifts we are supposed to fill are all in the middle if the night (the last one began at 3 am) and that's just not possible with two babies at home during the day.

I found something on "justServe" in bountiful and I sent a message asking for more info. Here's to hoping this one actually gets back to me!

 

Bluebell, chill! Two babies is enough humanitarian service for now.

 

Another note to this article....I was on a very liberal leaning list and everyone was expressing their agreement with this guy, isn't it just horrible and all. And a person I know who did start an organization to get LDS children protein supplements and money to attend school made a bit of a scolding comment trying to explain the problems with lack of infrastructure and cooperation.  Not a word aside from someone criticizing the one who dared to suggest they stop talking and get to work ....who had actually done what this guy was complaining about! The thread then went silent, evidently their work had been done...they complained and expressed their high minded ideals and self-righteousness. Not one question to this person. No attempt to find out the reality of what this guy is so ignorant of.  And there we have it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But shouldn't there be at least some minimal data given before coming to such a conclusion?

This is essentially why I said what I did. There have only been assertions that the machine is broken. Yet no detail or info on the broken parts.

[Mystery Meat]

Bluebell, chill! Two babies is enough humanitarian service for now.

 

Another note to this article....I was on a very liberal leaning list and everyone was expressing their agreement with this guy, isn't it just horrible and all. And a person I know who did start an organization to get LDS children protein supplements and money to attend school made a bit of a scolding comment trying to explain the problems with lack of infrastructure and cooperation.  Not a word aside from someone criticizing the one who dared to suggest they stop talking and get to work ....who had actually done what this guy was complaining about! The thread then went silent, evidently their work had been done...they complained and expressed their high minded ideals and self-righteousness. Not one question to this person. No attempt to find out the reality of what this guy is so ignorant of.  And there we have it.

 

I think there are people who are genuinely concerned and I think there are people whose only genuine concern is fault finding. It can be hard to tell the difference.

[bluebell]

Bluebell, chill! Two babies is enough humanitarian service for now.

At this point, any chance to leave the house without kids is a chance worth fighting for!

[rockpond]

sounds like apostasy to me

Not by the actual definition of apostasy.

[rockpond]

Agreed. So the important question is are we led by prophets right now. If the answer is no, I don't know why we are here. I believe that the answer is a strong yes, and so I think I am saying I don't think his faith is as strong as it could be.

You and I both agree that we're being led by prophets. And the "Bishop's" post implicitly agrees that we're being led by prophets. The questions he raises are about the message those prophets are communicating and their choices regarding consecrated funds.

[ERayR]

You and I both agree that we're being led by prophets. And the "Bishop's" post implicitly agrees that we're being led by prophets. The questions he raises are about the message those prophets are communicating and their choices regarding consecrated funds.

 

Isn't it fun to second guess those making the decisions when our brilliant ideas have no chance of becoming colossal blunders.

[rodheadlee]

My answer to that is a qualified yes.  In this case it seems that the anonymous bishop has faith in God but does not believe that the current prophet/apostles are communicating/following God's message.  

 

I know plenty of people with strong faith in God but who are not members of the church and therefore utterly reject our prophetic claim.  But I don't question their faithfulness to God.

We wouldn't expect non members to accept our prophets as speaking for Jesus Christ. What does this anonymous bishop hope to accomplish by putting all of this in a blog? Does he think one of our Apostles will read it and change the Church to suit his imagination? 

[rockpond]

We wouldn't expect non members to accept our prophets as speaking for Jesus Christ. What does this anonymous bishop hope to accomplish by putting all of this in a blog? Does he think one of our Apostles will read it and change the Church to suit his imagination?

You'd have to ask him about What he hopes to accomplish. But I imagine he hopes to encourage discussion of the ideas he put forward.

[rockpond]

Isn't it fun to second guess those making the decisions when our brilliant ideas have no chance of becoming colossal blunders.

They're big boys. I'm sure they can handle a little crib structure criticism.

Edited December 6, 2014 by rockpond

[Rain]

I am so excited to read this. I was aware of the JustServe website but it doesn't have anything listed for my area and I wasn't entirely sure how to get some traction there. But maybe we can call a JustServe specialist in our ward. That would be great!

Wait before calling someone. A community service specialist may be ok, but they aren't ready for Just Serve Specialists everywhere yet. There is a little training involved - for example they want to make sure the projects listed are helping the poor and the needy and are not political or fundraising.

They want to make sure charities are not contacted numerous times overwhelmingly so there is a process as to who contacts whom. They also want to make sure they are contacted in a good manner and not offending charities.

I found out today one thing that is different here than in other areas - the name of my calling.That the name is different isn't a big thing but it suggests to me that either the geographical area I am covering or the responsibilities I have is different. For example, I cover my entire stake which is only 2 square miles and there really wasn't a lot of organizations for me to contact. It's quite possible that a ward level specialist in another area would have many more organizations to contact than I do.

Besides that, to post projects you have to be given an account to do so.

Another thing they are looking at is website problems - fixing glitches here and there before everyone is getting on.

So I would keep it in mind for your ward and just be ready for it when they are ready for you.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Rain

[smac97]

You and I both agree that we're being led by prophets. And the "Bishop's" post implicitly agrees that we're being led by prophets. The questions he raises are about the message those prophets are communicating and their choices regarding consecrated funds.

 

This person, speaking anonymously, has said that he has been "'blessed' with a very interesting perspective," that the Brethren are "so-called," that the Brethren "do not have a message from Heaven," and that "their general message is Anti-Christ and promotes idolatry, and the worship of men."

 

These sound like declarations, not questions, about "the message those prophets are communicating."  So can you explain why are characterizing this individual as a person who is only raising "questions?"

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

You'd have to ask him about What he hopes to accomplish. But I imagine he hopes to encourage discussion of the ideas he put forward.

 

The "ideas he put forward" are that he has been "'blessed' with a very interesting perspective," that the Brethren are "so-called," that the Brethren "do not have a message from Heaven," and that "their general message is Anti-Christ and promotes idolatry, and the worship of men."

 

What sort of discussion about these ideas do you think he intends to encourage?

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

They're big boys. I'm sure they can handle a little crib structure criticism.

 

This person, speaking anonymously, has said that he has been "'blessed' with a very interesting perspective," that the Brethren are "so-called," that the Brethren "do not have a message from Heaven," and that "their general message is Anti-Christ and promotes idolatry, and the worship of men."

 

You are characterizing such statements as "a little crib structure criticism?"

 

Accusing the Brethren of purveying an Anti-Christ message is "a little crib structure criticism?"

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[canard78]

What suggests that he isn't faithful? And what gives you the rational to compare him to Judas?

If it's good enough for an apostle...

Comparing detractors to Judas is all the rage in 2014. Next year's villain to compare apostates to will be William Law. Or maybe Tom Phillips.

[rockpond]

This person, speaking anonymously, has said that he has been "'blessed' with a very interesting perspective," that the Brethren are "so-called," that the Brethren "do not have a message from Heaven," and that "their general message is Anti-Christ and promotes idolatry, and the worship of men."

You are characterizing such statements as "a little crib structure criticism?"

Accusing the Brethren of purveying an Anti-Christ message is "a little crib structure criticism?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I was referring to the essay I linked to in my OP. Not everything that "anonymous bishop" has written. I think his comments on his "intro" page are extreme.

[rockpond]

But shouldn't there be at least some minimal data given before coming to such a conclusion? Some recognition that we probably have little idea of what the church is doing? I learned some of that in Sis. Eubank's FairMormon talk. Might it be more of we can do more than it is "broken?"

The "why don't they" approach reminds me too much of the political battles over government. I would suggest that complaining online is not a substitute for putting on those boots and doing something. There is always something. And that is much more important because it changes us from the inside out.

The talk I see as important is the talk in church. If people move to people getting hand outs type talk at church, we now have Elder Holland's no nonsense talk to shut it down. Everybody needs to be armed with that. Members don't mean to demean the poor but some expect those who have never had the advantages they take for granted to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is the language that is hurting us. We have to have the appropriate language before behavior is going to change. Simply adding more demonizing is feeding into that problem.

The only data the church shares with respect to this topic is limited and discouraging. So I'm not sure what data you'd have him present.

What kind of "talk" would you suggest we engage in at church to change the general allocation of resources?

[The Nehor]

They're big boys. I'm sure they can handle a little crib structure criticism.

 

They can. The criticizer? Usually their faith is an early casualty.

[rockpond]

They can. The criticizer? Usually their faith is an early casualty.

Depends... faith in what? The leaders? I see that as a "chicken and the egg" scenario. In this case, it may be that he lost his faith in the leaders before criticizing them.

Edited December 6, 2014 by rockpond