LDS Freedom Forum

http://julieroweprepare.com/updates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It looks like she has set up a charity to help the helpless....cause, you know, there is a lot of need for that.

My question would be, what qualifies her over every other non-profit---inlcuding the Mormon Church---that would cause anyone to give her money over an established, reputable charity that is already doing the same....

If she really wants to help, all she needs is a list of serving bishops.

I am amazed to see such contempt for an individual that they can't even create a charity without being harshly criticized.

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

FearlessFixxer wrote:http://julieroweprepare.com/updates/

It looks like she has set up a charity to help the helpless....cause, you know, there is a lot of need for that.

My question would be, what qualifies her over every other non-profit---inlcuding the Mormon Church---that would cause anyone to give her money over an established, reputable charity that is already doing the same....

Just stop it. Seriously, just stop.

Catherine wrote:

FearlessFixxer wrote:http://julieroweprepare.com/updates/

It looks like she has set up a charity to help the helpless....cause, you know, there is a lot of need for that.

My question would be, what qualifies her over every other non-profit---inlcuding the Mormon Church---that would cause anyone to give her money over an established, reputable charity that is already doing the same....

Just stop it. Seriously, just stop.

I don't know who FeaarlessFixxer is, yet if you put yourself into the public domain like JR has, complete with books, firesides, and radio shows, then she has to deal with the negative feedback, especially when she promised things that did not take place.

Why would you want to get involved in some Charity that has no history except the person making promises that don't happen.

Who in their right mind would give Julie Rowe a bent penny?
In my view anyone who does has more money than sense.

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.

If you want to cut out the middle man, why would you then need Julie Rowe? As I see it, she has set herself up as the new middle man here.
You can give charity directly to some needy person at any time if you want to cut out the middle man.
There are actually some people on the forum here who do that.
dc

Catherine wrote:

FearlessFixxer wrote:http://julieroweprepare.com/updates/

It looks like she has set up a charity to help the helpless....cause, you know, there is a lot of need for that.

My question would be, what qualifies her over every other non-profit---inlcuding the Mormon Church---that would cause anyone to give her money over an established, reputable charity that is already doing the same....

Just stop it. Seriously, just stop.

Stop what? Julie Rowe is a public figure and I have asked a legitimate question. Why should we give her money over other organizations? And your answer is a hissy fit????

This is just a way for her to stay relevant. If we completely ignore her this all goes away. She is even now saying people will pay eternal consequences for speaking ill of her. People like her just want attention. By putting up posts like this it feeds into her ego. I know she comes on this site daily looking for links. She thinks she is so oppressed, give me a break she has brought this all on herself. I will always love her as a daughter of God and once again wish her no ill will. I hope she is happy and that she makes it back to live with our father in heaven. I am just calling a duck a duck. Please lets just stop posting about her.

setyourselffree wrote:This is just a way for her to stay relevant. If we completely ignore her this all goes away. She is even now saying people will pay eternal consequences for speaking ill of her. People like her just want attention. By putting up posts like this it feeds into her ego. I know she comes on this site daily looking for links. She thinks she is so oppressed, give me a break she has brought this all on herself. I will always love her as a daughter of God and once again wish her no ill will. I hope she is happy and that she makes it back to live with our father in heaven. I am just calling a duck a duck. Please lets just stop posting about her.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, but truth is truth.

The finances are not disclosed to the members.

All donations may legally be used wherever the Brethren decide to use them.

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.

I didn't say he was wrong, did someone else?

The point is, he's suggesting that organizations could be misusing funds or keep too much for themselves. My point is that if he's suggesting that for Julie's reason for setting up her own charity, he's suggesting she thinks she can do a better job than the church.

Lizzy60 wrote:Sorry, but truth is truth.

The finances are not disclosed to the members.

All donations may legally be used wherever the Brethren decide to use them.

And your point? Why don't you just be honest and admit you don't trust their judgement.

And if you don't trust them, why pay tithing at all? Why give them money they'll just mishandle, in your opinion. It's voluntary, no one is forcing you.

I guess you can give your charitable donations to Julie Rowe, since she's more 'transparent'.

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

As members of the church, we are promised that if we obey the Word of Wisdom, we shall be blessed to find great treasures of wisdom and knowledge, even hidden treasures.

Of course we also learn in church that these hidden treasures of knowledge were first mentioned in Hebrews.

In July 2007 the First Presidency Message at the beginning of the Ensign, written by Thomas S. Monson, president of the Church, related a story about the perils of hidden wedges.

The last time I was at church someone mentioned a talk by Mary Ellen Smoot where she taught that magnifying one's calling can result in the discovery of many hidden talents.

Church members Gawain and Gayle J. Wells collaborated on an article in the July 1986 Ensign entitled "Hidden Benefits of Keeping a History."

In the Church we are privileged to have Doctrine & Covenants Section 7, which contains a hidden record of John the Revelator.

I am a member of the Sandy Utah Hidden Valley stake, though I do not attend church meetings at the stake center.

Once when I was a kid, I couldn't find my church shoes, but that was only because my sister had hidden them from me.

I don't really have a point—just that setyourselffree did a really bad job defining what constitutes bashing.

captainfearnot wrote:

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

As members of the church, we are promised that if we obey the Word of Wisdom, we shall be blessed to find great treasures of wisdom and knowledge, even hidden treasures.

Of course we also learn in church that these hidden treasures of knowledge were first mentioned in Hebrews.

In July 2007 the First Presidency Message at the beginning of the Ensign, written by Thomas S. Monson, president of the Church, related a story about the perils of hidden wedges.

The last time I was at church someone mentioned a talk by Mary Ellen Smoot where she taught that magnifying one's calling can result in the discovery of many hidden talents.

Church members Gawain and Gayle J. Wells collaborated on an article in the July 1986 Ensign entitled "Hidden Benefits of Keeping a History."

In the Church we are privileged to have Doctrine & Covenants Section 7, which contains a hidden record of John the Revelator.

I am a member of the Sandy Utah Hidden Valley stake, though I do not attend church meetings at the stake center.

Once when I was a kid, I couldn't find my church shoes, but that was only because my sister had hidden them from me.

I don't really have a point—just that setyourselffree did a really bad job defining what constitutes bashing.

Ha point plankin!!!

FearlessFixxer wrote:

Catherine wrote:

FearlessFixxer wrote:http://julieroweprepare.com/updates/

It looks like she has set up a charity to help the helpless....cause, you know, there is a lot of need for that.

My question would be, what qualifies her over every other non-profit---inlcuding the Mormon Church---that would cause anyone to give her money over an established, reputable charity that is already doing the same....

Just stop it. Seriously, just stop.

Stop what? Julie Rowe is a public figure and I have asked a legitimate question. Why should we give her money over other organizations? And your answer is a hissy fit????

Not going to indulge you.

30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Catherine wrote:

FearlessFixxer wrote:

Catherine wrote:

FearlessFixxer wrote:http://julieroweprepare.com/updates/

It looks like she has set up a charity to help the helpless....cause, you know, there is a lot of need for that.

My question would be, what qualifies her over every other non-profit---inlcuding the Mormon Church---that would cause anyone to give her money over an established, reputable charity that is already doing the same....

Just stop it. Seriously, just stop.

Stop what? Julie Rowe is a public figure and I have asked a legitimate question. Why should we give her money over other organizations? And your answer is a hissy fit????

Not going to indulge you.

Because you can't

AI2.0 wrote:
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.

Personally I'm happy for her. If she wants to start a charity organization to help and bless the lives of others then more power to her. I think that's wonderful and I hope she succeeds!

Having said that though, some of the wording is a little troubling and reminds me of a non-profit charity organization I once joined a few years ago. That organization claimed very similar goals and values, but unbeknownst to me (until after I joined) turned out to have a strong militia element to it. Needless to say, that was a very short lived experience. To me Julie's wording also seems very carefully crafted towards that end... But perhaps my view is strongly colored by my previous experience. Even still, what do you make of their goal "to help address the immediate needs of [people] who are in need of... 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"? The organization I once joined would have used similar language to describe their "search and rescue" arm of the group, but in more appropriate language for others to understand would be nothing more than an organized militia using force of arms (if need be) to "rescue" people from areas of civil or national unrest and bring them safely back to the supposed tent cities.

I hope I'm wrong, but that's what I read into it. I do hope Julie's intentions are good and that I'm simply mistaken, but that wording is just so odd and reminiscent of the other non-profit charity I once joined which was anything but what they claimed to be on the surface.

Onsdag wrote:

AI2.0 wrote:
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.

Personally I'm happy for her. If she wants to start a charity organization to help and bless the lives of others then more power to her. I think that's wonderful and I hope she succeeds!

Having said that though, some of the wording is a little troubling and reminds me of a non-profit charity organization I once joined a few years ago. That organization claimed very similar goals and values, but unbeknownst to me (until after I joined) turned out to have a strong militia element to it. Needless to say, that was a very short lived experience. To me Julie's wording also seems very carefully crafted towards that end... But perhaps my view is strongly colored by my previous experience. Even still, what do you make of their goal "to help address the immediate needs of [people] who are in need of... 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"? The organization I once joined would have used similar language to describe their "search and rescue" arm of the group, but in more appropriate language for others to understand would be nothing more than an organized militia using force of arms (if need be) to "rescue" people from areas of civil or national unrest and bring them safely back to the supposed tent cities.

I hope I'm wrong, but that's what I read into it. I do hope Julie's intentions are good and that I'm simply mistaken, but that wording is just so odd and reminiscent of the other non-profit charity I once joined which was anything but what they claimed to be on the surface.

Very interesting. She did not give much information so I guess we'll have to wait to find out. In this initial post she asked for volunteers to join the group and when I looked, she did not have a way for people to actually send money, that I could see.