LDS Freedom Forum

AI2.0 wrote:

Magus wrote:In Julie's defense - we don't always know where the Church puts its money, and cutting out the middle man allows you to be directly involved in the process and thus experience the rewards in a more personal way. It also gives you control as to how the money is used.

Not saying that's Julie's reason or not, who knows. But that would be why a sincere and charitable person would set up a charity themselves instead of going through their bishop and a.) hoping he spends it wisely and then b.) forgetting about it completely. It's not such a crazy idea.

I'm not sure your defense of Julie Rowe would be appreciated. You are suggesting that Julie is putting herself in the position of middle man because she doesn't trust how the church spends money in caring for the poor. You are also implying that the church is enriching itself as 'middle man' and if that's the case, what would keep any one who serves as middle man from doing the same? What would keep Julie from doing the same?

Frankly, you'd be better off NOT speculating as to why she's doing it. We don't know why she's doing it, as far as I know, she hasn't explained her reasons. She posted this:

The purpose of this organization is to help address the immediate needs of families, children and individuals who are in need of food, clothing or shelter and other immediate needs and assistance and are in harm’s way or have been, and are displaced or may be displaced, due to national or community disasters or unrest either realized or anticipated.

It is a little surprising since this is what the Church humanitarian fund is for and so I don't know why LDS members would give to her organization instead. Maybe she thinks she'll get donations from non members. And maybe some of her LDS followers will be more inclined to give her charity money because they believe she has a special connection to God.

I'm not suggesting anything about Julie Rowe. I'm just offering objective reasons why a person might not go directly through the Church. I believe I said that I don't know what her reasons are. That means I'm not suggesting anything.

Nor am I implying the Church is enriching itself. I don't even know where you're getting that from. But my personal opinion is that the diligence and efficiency of going through your Bishop might be hit or miss if you want something specific done. That's just how it is when you use someone else to get something specific done that you have in mind. But if you're just throwing money at the Church's general charity fund, they'll use it as they will.

I'm not the one who was speculating what her motivations were - others were. That's why I came (sorta) to her defense in just trying to show people that there are other reasons for doing such a thing besides personal gain. But never once did I say that those were her reasons.

setyourselffree wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:Magus is correct in saying that we don't always know where the Church spends the money that is donated. That is the reason for the legal statement at the bottom of the donation slip. They are able to use members' donations in whatever area they choose, and financial details have been hidden from the members for over 50 years, so there is no way to guarantee that your donation, specifed for Humanitarian Aid, is actually used for that purpose. I am NOT bashing the Church(tm), just stating the legal fact behind the fine print on your donation slip.

Sounds like you are bashing the church to me. Anytime you say the words hidden and church within the same sentence it is bashing.

I strongly disagree. Do you think the Church has never hidden something from the membership before? If you don't, you don't know Church history.

Magus wrote:
I'm not suggesting anything about Julie Rowe. I'm just offering objective reasons why a person might not go directly through the Church. I believe I said that I don't know what her reasons are. That means I'm not suggesting anything.

Nor am I implying the Church is enriching itself. I don't even know where you're getting that from. But my personal opinion is that the diligence and efficiency of going through your Bishop might be hit or miss if you want something specific done. That's just how it is when you use someone else to get something specific done that you have in mind. But if you're just throwing money at the Church's general charity fund, they'll use it as they will.

I'm not the one who was speculating what her motivations were - others were. That's why I came (sorta) to her defense in just trying to show people that there are other reasons for doing such a thing besides personal gain. But never once did I say that those were her reasons.

Julie's charity is no more specific. And if you are giving money to the LDS humanitarian fund, which I assume you are calling a 'general charity fund?', you don't 'go through' the Bishop, it's on the tithing slip which you can mail directly to church headquarters. Now you can send it online. Ward tithing slip donations are deposited each sunday in church bank accounts where it is distributed to those in need--such as the people in Afghanistan who are suffering right now.

Magus wrote:

setyourselffree wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:Magus is correct in saying that we don't always know where the Church spends the money that is donated. That is the reason for the legal statement at the bottom of the donation slip. They are able to use members' donations in whatever area they choose, and financial details have been hidden from the members for over 50 years, so there is no way to guarantee that your donation, specifed for Humanitarian Aid, is actually used for that purpose. I am NOT bashing the Church(tm), just stating the legal fact behind the fine print on your donation slip.

Sounds like you are bashing the church to me. Anytime you say the words hidden and church within the same sentence it is bashing.

I strongly disagree. Do you think the Church has never hidden something from the membership before? If you don't, you don't know Church history.

If the church has 'hidden' something in the past, does that justify questioning what they do with charitable donations? I know you keep insisting that you're not implying anything, but in my opinion, you are. Lizzy certainly was with her comment.

AI2.0 wrote:

Magus wrote:
I'm not suggesting anything about Julie Rowe. I'm just offering objective reasons why a person might not go directly through the Church. I believe I said that I don't know what her reasons are. That means I'm not suggesting anything.

Nor am I implying the Church is enriching itself. I don't even know where you're getting that from. But my personal opinion is that the diligence and efficiency of going through your Bishop might be hit or miss if you want something specific done. That's just how it is when you use someone else to get something specific done that you have in mind. But if you're just throwing money at the Church's general charity fund, they'll use it as they will.

I'm not the one who was speculating what her motivations were - others were. That's why I came (sorta) to her defense in just trying to show people that there are other reasons for doing such a thing besides personal gain. But never once did I say that those were her reasons.

Julie's charity is no more specific. And if you are giving money to the LDS humanitarian fund, which I assume you are calling a 'general charity fund?', you don't 'go through' the Bishop, it's on the tithing slip which you can mail directly to church headquarters. Now you can send it online. Ward tithing slip donations are deposited each sunday in church bank accounts where it is distributed to those in need--such as the people in Afghanistan who are suffering right now.

You're right - but I wasn't talking about people going through Julie Rowe as an alternative, I was talking about Julie Rowe not going through the Church and starting her own thing, so that way she is the one in control and can oversee what she's doing.

AI2.0 wrote:

Magus wrote:

setyourselffree wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:Magus is correct in saying that we don't always know where the Church spends the money that is donated. That is the reason for the legal statement at the bottom of the donation slip. They are able to use members' donations in whatever area they choose, and financial details have been hidden from the members for over 50 years, so there is no way to guarantee that your donation, specifed for Humanitarian Aid, is actually used for that purpose. I am NOT bashing the Church(tm), just stating the legal fact behind the fine print on your donation slip.

Sounds like you are bashing the church to me. Anytime you say the words hidden and church within the same sentence it is bashing.

I strongly disagree. Do you think the Church has never hidden something from the membership before? If you don't, you don't know Church history.

If the church has 'hidden' something in the past, does that justify questioning what they do with charitable donations? I know you keep insisting that you're not implying anything, but in my opinion, you are. Lizzy certainly was with her comment.

Do you know what the Church does with its charitable donations? We all know what they say they do with them. But no one KNOWS what they do with it except those that directly deal with it. I trust that they use them mainly for charity, if not totally. But I'm not so naive as to think that its impossible for them to occasionally dip into the charity fund if they need to if they are short on something else that is a priority. It's certainly feasible. The ethics of that are questionable in the eyes of the world, but so were the ethics of the Lord commanding the Israelites to slaughter every man woman and child in Canaan. At the end of the day, you do what you need to do to get the Lord's will done - if that means dipping into the charity fund, and the Lord is okay with that, then fine. It might be a sign of bad management, however, if that is what was going on. And certainly it is a known fact that Church leaders are fallible and not always the best managers - and I'm speaking of potentially anyone, from a Deacon's quorum president all the way up to the President of the Church.

But no, I'm not implying anything. And I wasn't even really talking about the Church's finances, honestly. I was really just responding to the idea that the Church doesn't hide anything, or that saying it hides something is somehow bashing it. It's not bashing it, and it does hide things and has hidden things. The fact finances are hidden, alone, proves that point. That doesn't mean I'm bashing the Church. Think critically and learn to see that making an objective, solitary point, doesn't necessarily have to be for or against the Church. It's just establishing facts.

Seeing everything through a prism of "pro-LDS or anti-LDS" really limits your depth of your scope and understanding. I don't really operate by those guidelines - I try hard to operate simply under the guidelines of objectivity. If it makes the Church look bad to someone, oh well. That's their perspective, and mine will be my own, whatever it is.

zionminded wrote:Or suggest that the responsibility to have charity is based on a church leader to act on your behalf.

So by what authority would we have Julie Rowe act on our behalf? None, right? Yes.
dc