FYI, Jessica Beagley, the LDS mother who, well, abused her adopted son, has been convicted of abusing her adopted son. Misdemeanor child abuse conviction. Sentencing hasn’t taken place yet.
hot sauce mom – convicted
Related Posts
“It’s dj vu all over again” … God orders Mormon therapist to copulate with patient
The Salt Lake Tribune reports: A woman has sued LDS Family Services for not taking action against a therapist she said convinced her that having sex with him would help her overcome a history of sexual abuse and the demons inside her. Holbrook told [Jacobsen] that he had prayed in…
NZ man almost kills daughter for not attending church
I was saddened last week to see this story about a New Zealand man who hit his daughter in the head with a lump of concrete when she refused to go to the mormon church with him. Now, I think this man is an abuser, and would be an abuser…
A Silver Lining Behind Tad Callister’s No-Good, Heartless, Horrible Church News Article
Just in time for Pride Month, a General Authority emeritus has published an article in The Church News declaiming the social safety nets because governments must ensure wickedness never was happiness. Well, not in so many words, but it has all the unloving, racist, outdated implications you’d expect. Tad Callister…
I suppose that means that Hi, my name is Jessica and I’m a Mormon YouTube clip is not gonna get enough new viewers to get past the 2 million mark. Bummer.
In other news, a Mormon’s dog bit one of the neighborhood kids.
Seth, I’m not trying to point out the link between her Mormonism and her behavior. I thought it would be appropriate to post the follow-up or outcome with her case, which doesn’t seem to happen very often in the media. I said then that I thought what she had done was abuse; it’s nice to have that backed up in a court of law.
IIRC, Chino’s original point was that Beagley’s Mormonism was just as relevant as that of the people appearing in the official “…And I’m a Mormon” video series. If their being hip, quirky people has some sort of connection to Mormonism, then why doesn’t her being a practitioner of abusive parenting techniques have one? Or could it be that the whole premise of the series is silly?
Of course, others might wonder about what kind of “discernment” led to someone with her bizarre ideas about appropriate parenting techniques being put in a prominent position overseeing children in her stake, but that’s a separate question.
The premise really isn’t that silly (unless you’re a hopelessly jaded and cynical DAMU-ite – in which case, nothing would really get through anyway, so why bother…). The idea is that a lot of America doesn’t really see us as people – but as dehumanized objects. The ad campaign addresses that. I’m not really invested in it one way or the other – but I think it’s fine and see no problems with it. Kind of like the City Creek Mall.
They’re both one of those dumb things the DAMU has decided to bitch about – but are really quite innocuous.
Hey, let’s have this discussion one more time. It’s such a classic — people just can’t get enough of it! 😀
But seriously, Seth, Kuri stated his point in a clear and civil manner without speculating about the character and motives of others in this discussion. Perhaps you could do the same.
I don’t know, Seth, I think you are invested in the City Creek Mall. I’m just not sure what return you will get on your investment.
You guys are seriously idiots. I guess I’ll start posting on here every time a non-mormon or ex-mormon is convicted of child abuse, or murder, or rape, or whatever.
As long as I’m a “serious idiot” rather than an unserious one, I guess I’m okay with that.
So does Chino’s video. It shows a Mormon who isn’t a perfect Mormon stereotype.
Parker, if I knew that every last red cent of my tithing was going to the City Creek Mall (which it isn’t), I’d be just fine with it.
I viewed the “I’m a Mormon” campaign as useful and informative. It portrays the LDS Church as it really is (it’s not comprehensive, but so what?). And it counters the misguided popular view that you can judge the content of an organization by it’s leadership’s compliance with 1990s-style affirmative action.
As such, I’m fine with it.
I guess when Jesus said you cannot serve both God and Mammon, he just forgot to say “unless you’re Mormon.”
“And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.”
Luke 16:9
It’s interesting what comes right after that:
Of course, none of that could possibly apply to Mormons.
Someone ought to make up the equivalent of Godwin’s Law for the use of the word “pharisee” on the bloggernacle.
Anyway, this is all on the level of vague accusations. So I guess pick whatever bias you want and get on with it.
I don’t think the accusation is particularly vague. I agree with Jesus: set out to make money and you’ll end up serving money more than you serve God (whether you define “God” as an anthropomorphic being or simply as goodness and niceness). Jesus mentions no exceptions; I’ve never seen one either. I have seen a whole lot of people who think they’re exceptions, though.
Also, I always found it interesting that when the subject of the Pharisees would come up in Sunday School discussions, talk would always turn to examples of phariseeism “in the world.” Same thing when “unrighteous dominion” would come up — always talk of what happens “in the world” rather than in the church. I guess I can add “serving God and Mammon” to the list of astute observations of human nature that apparently don’t apply to Mormons.
So, you’d just prefer that churches ran bake sales, filed for occasional bankruptcy, and never really amounted to much in society.
Well, I can see why a secularist would take that stance. But I don’t think life is that convenient.
I’d prefer that churches use their billions on direct aid to needy people rather than to build expensive monuments to materialism. But I guess as a secularist I just don’t get it.
But “amounted to much in society”? Seriously? Is that something that your god, who said “that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God,” would care about?
Kuri, Jesus was obviously a bit of a special case. Remember statements like “the poor you always have with you, but me you will not always have with you”?
It’s obvious to me that a financially viable organization is going to do more net charity than one that blew all it’s cash in one big fling.
It’s almost always better in charity cases to set up a large investment, and then let the interest rates generate constant, stable charitable revenues. That’s how you set up an organization that will CONTINUE to provide social benefit.
Sure, you could make a splash in one big financial event – and maybe that would boost your own ego a bit. But unglamorous long-term gains are going to do far more good.
Because of it’s financially responsible stance, the LDS Church is currently far more capable of really coming through on humanitarian aid than most churches out there. In one year alone, the LDS Church spends more of humanitarian aid than the entire City Creek Mall is going to cost (which incidentally – the LDS Church isn’t footing the entire bill for).
So yeah – I am saying the world of charity giving is full of starry-eyed financial idiots. Sure, they can brag about their “principles.”
And they also aren’t really doing much with the stewardship either. Any idiot knows that you invest money – not blow it all at once as soon as you get it.
So, I’m glad that a bunch of left-wing bleeding hearts are proud of their principles.
Maybe when it’s time to hand out food aid, they can offer the disaster victims their “principles” for dinner.
Seth, I’m calling BS on your claim that the LDS Church “spends more on (sic) humanitarian aid than the entire City Creek Mall is going to cost” per year. That’s total crap.
http://www.providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/WelfareFactSheet.pdf
If you average out their monetary and non-monetary donations over the 1985-2008 period (as listed in their own document linked above), it amounts to 0.7% of their revenues (assuming $6 billion in annual donations per year per Ostling and Ostling). The total is about $1 billion over 23 years. They are not a major charitable donor, despite their claims to the contrary. The United Methodists spend nearly 30% per year.
I’m not interested in percentages profxm.
City Creek is expected to cost about 1.5 billion. You can find the figures from Taubman – one of the partners – here:
http://www.taubman.com/images/pdf_cache/5255.pdf
As for my figures on Church spending. I think I’m reading my sources wrong. So scratch the claim that the Church spends more than 1.5 billion per year – that doesn’t look true at all. Sorry for the mix up.
Thank you for admitting your error.
LDS Inc. doesn’t spend $1.5 billion in humanitarian aid per year. It’s more like $52 million ($1,122,000,000 divided by 23, per the report). $52 million is great. Good on them. But it’s not even close to $1.5 billion.
Not sure why you aren’t interested in percentages. United Methodists put LDS Inc. to shame when it comes to percentage of revenue donated to charitable causes. Is that why you aren’t interested in percentages?
I’m not interested in percentages because I just got done explaining that long term viability is more important than going out with a bang every year.
You’re treating LDS Inc. and other religions like actual charities, which is not a good comparison. Bill and Melinda Gates don’t want to “blow their wad” because they want to continue to fund things over time. Religions are different. They bring in money under the guise of “charity” but then spend it on other things. Their revenue stream is constant, unlike Bill Gates’s revenue stream, which is not. In other words, Bill made his money at Time A but is not continuing to make money, except off the interest of the money made at Time A. LDS Inc. made their money (using the same wording for parsimony) at Time A. But they are also making their money at Time B, and Time C, and Time D, etc. It’s not like their revenue stream has closed. What’s more, it’s not like LDS Inc. has taken billions and invested it in stocks and is now using the interest revenue to pay out for charity. It uses fast offerings and other donations as the source of charitable donations it makes. Ergo, you’re trying to compare apples to oranges, and you shouldn’t.
In this case, comparing United Methodists (apple) to LDS Inc. (apple) is relevant. Percentages are relevant. I’m not comparing LDS Inc. to the Red Cross but to another religion. So, dismissing the percentages is like trying to hide something that doesn’t shine favorably on LDS Inc.
Hold the phone prof.
Who exactly is “making money” off this here?
And what are these “other things” the LDS Church is spending the money on? The big things I can think of are real estate holdings for church buildings, etc. and the universities (which frankly are such bargains that they darn near qualify as charitable enterprises).
Fast offerings stay local and help out struggling ward members. They don’t go to fund any of the Church’s other charitable operations.
Don’t try to change the focus. I said in my post “using the same wording for parsimony”. LDS Inc. brings in “revenue.” That revenue is in a variety of forms: tithing, fast offerings, other donations, and corporate revenue. There is no clarity at all in how the money is pooled or spent. None. The point is, they bring in revenue. In my post I called it “making money” because I was comparing it to Bill Gates, who “made money.” I could have just as easily have said “Bill Gates received revenue” just like “LDS Inc. receives revenue”. The point being, they both bring in revenue, but the methodology for spending that revenue is very different.
Bill Gates MADE money at Time A and wants to continue spending that money on various causes. Logical approach: invest and spend interest.
LDS Inc. is MAKING money at Time A+1….n. Logical approach: Spend part of the revenue received annually on charity.
Bill Gates = orange
LDS Inc. = apple
Don’t compare them.
United Methodists = apple
LDS Inc. = apple
Compare them.
A billion dollars could be used, for example, to put 25,000 underprivileged youth through college (25,000 x $10,000/year x 4 years). That would have an enormous positive impact on those kids’ lives.
Or a billion dollars could be used to fund a great and spacious shopping mall, which would certainly have a lesser impact on probably far fewer people, but would possibly provide a much better financial return on investment.
And the church has chosen to seek return on investment rather than to try to do the maximum possible good. Of course, it and its apologists try to deny that and to justify its actions in various ways, but it’s obvious what’s really happening. The church is serving its money first and God (i.e., people/goodness/niceness) second. Just like Jesus said would happen. He was a pretty smart guy sometimes.
“shopping mall, which would certainly have a lesser impact on probably far fewer people”
I call BS Kuri.
There’s no possible way you can back up that statement. First off – free college education does no favors. It just breeds laziness and entitlement. Secondly, you are exaggerating the worth of a higher education degree in our current economic climate, and trivializing the net economic and social impact of urban renewal. Sure you can fabricate bare assertions out of thin air based on mere prejudice (eeew gross – a shopping mall – that’s like… Abercrombie and Fitch Land…).
And no prof, the comparison between LDS and Methodists is not exactly apt. The Methodists aren’t doing the same stuff the LDS Church is necessarily. I’m not interested in comparing percentages because comparing percentages would probably mask whether the Methodists are even maximizing the funds they could be devoting to various projects.
Anyone can spend a percentage of their revenues on charity. But that doesn’t say anything about whether it’s being spent usefully.
“Useful” is, by definition, subjective. If you want to move charity purely into the realm of the subjective, evaluate religions/charities using this criteria. This way, you can’t help but find that LDS Inc. is the most awesome, amazing, wonderful, stupendous, beneficient, kind, etc. charity around if that is what you want to find (sounds like it is).
Or you can use objective criteria like: percent of revenue spent on charity. By this objective measure, LDS Inc. sucks!
I prefer my objective measure. You can prefer your subjective measure.
prof, are you trying to accuse me of confirmation bias or something?
Because the last three posts of yours have been absolutely dripping with it.
And your measure isn’t “objective” prof.
It’s reductionist.
Big difference.
Nope. Just saying that, using objective criteria like “percent of revenue spent on charity” is a reasonable criteria for evaluating the charitable activities of a religion. By that standard, LDS Inc. does not fare well. That’s my point. Pure and simple.
If you want to use subjective criteria, which, you have to admit, “usefulness of charity” is subjective, I have no way to argue against you. What you consider “useful” may not be what I consider “useful.” Ergo, no point arguing that.
I’ll stick to the objective criteria.
If it is “reductionist,” then give me an “objective” measure.
Here’s one:
Cash flow.
How much cold hard cash does each organization manage to funnel consistently into charitable ventures?
The Methodists can blow all the percentages they want – if they don’t have solid, long-term consistent contributing power, I don’t care.
My daughter is receiving a free college education. Are you calling her lazy and entitled, you fucking asshole?
Kuri, if she’s getting it for free, that says she worked in other ways for it.
My point was simply dumping money at social problems isn’t any sort of panacea.
Yeah, you didn’t mean anyone specific, you just meant “those other people,” right? The leeches and sponges of your imagination.
College degrees are worth an average of more $900,000 in lifetime earnings above a high school degree. A master’s degree adds another $400,000. A PhD adds another $900,000. A professional degree adds $1,000,000 more than that.
So a $40,000 scholarship to someone who would otherwise not be able to complete college should add at least about $900,000 to the economy. Multiply that by 25,000 and you get $22.5 billion in added value. Sounds to me like a good place to throw some money. But the profit wouldn’t go to the church, so of course it wouldn’t be interested. Just like Jesus said it wouldn’t.
Actually Kuri, I was talking about myself. Not hypothetical people at all.
And the value of a higher education degree has gone drastically in the last decade.
To use an extreme example – I’ll pick on law (my own degree). Currently over at Denver’s law school they’re hitting about a 70% unemployment rate three years out of law school. Most top 100 schools, you’re looking about 60%. A large number of grads bail on the legal field entirely and try to get work elsewhere.
So that’s at least one higher degree that actually is not paying out. It’s no longer necessarily true that higher education = more earning power. I’ve filed bankruptcy for people who are nearly a decade out from their degrees and still haven’t earned it back – and are in jobs that they could have gotten without the degree.
I have a pretty skeptical view of higher education in general at the moment, and I’ve got little to counter it except for liberal propaganda assurances I got in high school about “education is the future.”
Oh, so you consider yourself lazy and entitled? Glad to know you didn’t just mean people like my daughter.
When you’re done thinking up new obscenities to throw at me, maybe you can re-read my comment and see that my opinion was actually about a climate that certain actions foster.
And my point still stands that you have no real basis for saying that an urban renewal project is more or less beneficial than an equal number of cash scholarships.
But I don’t think it really matters much. If the LDS Church did start handing out scholarships, then the criticism would simply shift to “oh, they’re just favoring privileged white Mormon kids.” Then if they shifted on that, it would shift to something else – and how they were neglecting much “more pressing” social problems, of which I’m sure most people could find examples. I don’t see that cycle ending anytime soon.
People who are pissed at the church will find reasons to remain so.
Anyway, BYU is basically one big massive scholarship program. Tuition there is ridiculously low for a private university of that quality. And then they further subsidize the entire operation by creating droves of make-work student employment positions that, honestly, are not really needed.
The entire student body is one massive scholarship program – even the non-Mormons. So I’m not sure what you were on about in the first place. The LDS Church is ALREADY subsidizing higher education in a major way.
You think free college educations for people whose families can’t pay for them create laziness and entitlement. My daughter is getting a free college education because her family can’t pay for it. Therefore you think my daughter is lazy and entitled. What part of that, exactly, is misconstruing your opinion rather than simply applying it?
OK, one last response on this little threadjack within a threadjack (within a threadjack that I started – sorry Chanson), and then I’m done responding to your attempts to turn hurt feelings into debate currency.
I stated that throwing free higher education at people creates a climate of laziness and entitlement.
Got that – a climate – a general atmosphere.
You then fallaciously tried to pull it down to a specific individual that I don’t know the first thing about.
But there is no necessary connection between the two.
Besides, I wasn’t talking about the Pell Grant system when I made that comment to begin with.
You don’t know anything about my daughter, that’s true. So who, exactly, do you know anything about? Who are these lazy, entitled poor people sponging up college scholarships? I’d like to meet some. Cause the ones in my daughter’s program seem to be hard-working and fucking grateful for their opportunities.
But you don’t mean them either, right? I guess you’re just talking about a general atmosphere of laziness and entitlement that sort of floats around in the ether but doesn’t actually alight on anyone. At least, not in a way that would involve you actually taking responsibility for your words.
And, BTW, I’m not talking about Pell grants either. I’m talking about a full-ride four-year scholarship. Which my lazy, entitled daughter got thrown at her by a government-run university.
Can someone tell me what Seth R. is talking about?
“Cash flow. How much cold hard cash does each organization manage to funnel consistently into charitable ventures?”
United Methodists per year = $62 million
LDS Inc. per year = $52 million
winner = United Methodists
Oh, total revenue for UMC = $214 million
total revenue for LDS Inc. (estimated) = $6 billion
Any other metric you’d like to use, Seth, to show that LDS Inc. is, um, really charitable?
(reference for those interested: http://www.gcfa.org/sites/default/files/u3/December%20Financial%20Commitment%20Reports_0.pdf)
profxm,
Is that 62 million figure for the UMC for the centralized organization, or for the entire church – including the LOCAL congregations?
Because it looks to me like your figures are actually excluding revenues within the UMC for local congregations – this includes things like costs for buildings and pastor salaries (along with various other local paid staff). In the LDS Church – the centralized organization pays for all these costs. The UMC does not.
Under the UMC’s own guidelines, each church is required to have its own finance committee which sets things like pastor salary. This looks like a decentralized operation where the local units operate financially independently. They do not send all their revenues to the central organization – which then distributes it back out – like the LDS Church.
This has to be seriously distorting your figures – and the 214 million figure has to be only the tip of the iceberg in what the collective UMC and all it’s member units are pulling in.
Really, I don’t even think you can run a church that large on just 214 million. It would also average to $2.67 per year, per member in donations.
Something doesn’t add up.
For the entire church, including the local congregations. Those aren’t my figures, those are the Figures from the General Council on Finance and Administration of the UMC. You see, Seth, the UMC actually reports total revenues and how they are spent. Unlike LDS Inc., which doesn’t report anything!
If you read their report, it shows that the money comes into a central location (or at least is registered by the central location) and then is disbursed. The $62 million comes from just one line (they actually probably spend more):
United Methodist Committee on Relief = $62,323,674.00 in 2010.
I don’t know all the details, but I do know that about 20% of members provide about 80% of donations in most churches/religion in the US (per several studies that have found as much; references available upon request).
You can try to argue that these numbers don’t add up; go for it. But what I’m seeing in your efforts is something akin to, “You cannot find any evidence that will suggest to me that LDS Inc. isn’t the best church on the planet. I will dissect whatever you provide in order to obfuscate, confuse, and mislead so I can continue to believe LDS Inc. is super charitable.”
I proposed an objective criteria – percent of revenues donated. You called it reductionistic and dismissed it (IMO because it makes LDS Inc. look really bad).
You proposed an objective criteria – total money spent on charity. I showed that UMC still does better than LDS Inc. and now you want to dismiss it.
Is there any evidence that will convince you LDS Inc. sucks when it comes to charity? Or am I arguing with a wall here?
Oh, and your math is wrong. $214 million divided by 11,366,000 (members; per ARIS 2008) = $18.82 per member per year. Or, if you do the math in light of the fact that 20% donate 80%, that tallies $75.00 per member per year. That’s probably still low, but what percentage of UMC don’t donate anything? Don’t know, but I’m guessing it’s a significant portion, like in any religion.
Yeah, I noticed that one aspect of that math was wrong – but it was a decimal point. $26.70 instead of $2.67.
And don’t misrepresent my position. I never tried to claim that the LDS Church is the best on the planet in respect to charity. I personally think it’s unlikely that it is – nor do I think it has to be for my purposes in this exchange.
profxm, if I’m reading this correctly all the money contributions to local units is NOT being included in the UMC’s statement. Only some of it. Each UMC unit sends a PORTION of its earnings to the central UMC – but not all of it – or even most of it. Each unit takes care of its own expenses. Even the source you link to acknowledges this if you read carefully:
“The people of The United Methodist Church have faithfully responded to the call to support ministries around the globe that touch lives. Giving to the apportioned funds [those are special funds set up by the general conference–CH] increased 2.5% over 2009. Individuals, local churches, and annual conferences faced the financial challenges of the year and still contributed faithfully to the mission and ministry of The United Methodist Church.”
That last sentence is the key here. Local units faced their own budgetary challenges and problems (paying the pastor, paying for the building, staff, etc.) and THEN they managed to send funds to the central organization. This means that pastor salaries, building costs and such are NOT being included in the UMC’s yearly statements. That’s not a criticism of them – that’s just how they are organized. It’s definitely not a central distribution system like the LDS Church.
North Alabama UMC district website describes it this way:
“Churches contribute financial resources (a portion of their local church budget known as “apportionments”; “conference askings”; or connectional giving) which enables the Annual Conference to support ministry projects within its boundaries and throughout the world; provide training sessions to help its churches be more effective; start new churches and ministries; provide special events for children, youth and adults; and administrate the business of this connection of churches.”
http://www.northalabamaumc.org/pages/detail/860
Clearly the two are not comparable in all respects, and the full amount of money that Methodists in the United State are contributing is not being shown in the UMC stats.
One final thing – does your estimate on LDS revenues include Fast Offerings?
One other thing – look at the UMC spreadsheet you linked to.
Where are the construction accounts, the building maintenance accounts, etc.? Those cost money. An AWFUL LOT of money, actually. But where are the accounts for it on the UMC statement?
If I had to make my best guess, I’d say they are being handled locally by local Methodist congregations. That’s not to say the UMC is hiding the ball – I’m sure the local Methodist units have their own accountability and reporting to their own membership.
But this is just the way Protestants normally do things. They decentralize it. So I imagine you’re going to run into similar problems with any national Protestant umbrella organization and its numbers.
Seth, you may be right about what is included in the spreadsheet.
Even so, it doesn’t change the main conclusion. UMC gives $62 million per year at the denominational level (perhaps more at the congregational level); LDS Inc. gives $52 million per year at some level (based on what little we know and estimates). Unless UMC brings in more than $6 billion annually at all levels, they are still donating more than LDS Inc. as a percentage and in absolute numbers. I don’t know that they do, but I doubt that they bring in that much.
My estimate on LDS revenues is from Ostling and Ostling’s book. I don’t recall at the moment what they included and I don’t have the book handy.
Seth does bring up a good point, can we really trust the numbers from the umc? I don’t know.
I do know that the umc doesn’t necessarily build many new buildings…at least many have been around for some time in my area. There isn’t an emphasis on new buildings…or temples. Churches are closed by the larger organization if they can’t fill the pews. Many local churches will take you off the rolls within a year of non-attendance. For some, their budget or funds sent nationally depends on the active, presumably tithing members.
So Seth is right, it’s a different type and focused religion.
I don’t understand the focus on liquidity, personally. Why should the LDS church (or any church) hoard gold, land or resources? I suppose it’s a matter of goals and focus. People who need help now or the end of civilization, which is quickly on its way! (tongue in cheek for that one, obviously).
I would love to see the LDS church be more transparent in its financial reporting. I disagree with how it spends its money, and characterizes the spending, but I can’t really change that.
I also agree the BYU scholarships are good. But there are a lot of things that could be re-evaluated for their effectiveness and efficency (the pros. mission program).
Back to the OP, I hope the mom gets help, and parents in the lds church and elsewhere find better?ways to discipline their kids and negotiate conflict.
Oh, I see no reason not to trust the UMC figures.
I just think it’s important not to make those figures say more than they actually say.
I feel sorry for this woman, and sorry that the state of Alaska has taken this so far.
My parents, especially my father, were both abusive at different points in my childhood. Mostly verbally and emotionally, but sometimes physically. When I was 8 or so, my mother got drunk and beat me black and blue with a wooden spoon because I called one of her drinking friends a “jerk” (he was). I had mean, dark spoon-shaped bruises over my face and back and chest; my father kept me home from school for several days so the teachers wouldn’t ask about them. When I was a teenager, my father gave me the worst of it, throwing me into walls, pushing me down, and on one occasion, slugging me in the stomach. I daresay that what my parents did to me was far worse than what this mother was doing to her son on that video tape.
And I would never have wished prosecution on my parents. Not in a million years.
As the years went by, my parents both changed. Yes, my mother struggled with early motherhood and raising five children (two of whom were developmentally disabled) while her military husband was often gone for weeks at a time, and she made some bad decisions like drinking and beating her daughter. But she got herself straightened out. By the time of her death in 2008, she was sweet and gentle, a doting grandmother, and nothing like the woman who beat me when I was a little girl. Everyone around her loved her, and it wasn’t a show, either.
My father is repentant in his own way. He’s never been the sort to say “sorry” for anything, and I sometimes worry about his ability to control his temper. But he hasn’t hurt anyone in years, and he’s been very loving and supportive in other ways. I’ve come to believe that he does know that he did me wrong when I was a teenager and he would like to make up for it, even if his pride will never allow him to admit it.
People can change, and parents who abuse their kids rarely need prosecution. What they need is counseling and a very harsh reality check that what they are doing is NOT okay and would not be acceptable if the general public could see it. This woman has already been through public humiliation. She needs counseling, not prison time.
I don’t know this woman, but I think it’s entirely possible that she can be a loving and responsible mother to her adoptive son. I think they can both find healing. And I don’t think a prison sentence is going to help that.
Geez Jack, make us get back on topic here… The nerve…
I think the general public also has a knee-jerk reaction that if they simply remove the kids from the abusive parent, we can then safely ignore the kids and trust that social services will “do whatever it is they do” and take care of the issue.
This is naive.
We don’t pay enough in state taxes for it to work that smoothly. The foster care system in the US has a LOT of problems. It’s beyond naive to simply trust that removing a kid from an abusive parent will destine that kid for a better future.
It’s also a hell of a thing to break up a family. Even an abusive one. The kids NEVER get over it. And in the court system – only the bad points of the parent are on display. Not the good ones.
We had a case here in Boulder County where a 4 year old soiled his underwear at a BBQ at the park. He was ashamed, so he wandered off, without telling anyone, and hid in the family car. Some passerby spotted him and called the police. The Child Protective Services cop showed up and issued the parents a citation. That dad spent the next three years in the Boulder court system trying to sort the issue out with a very difficult and unsympathetic judge.
Back in the early 80s, my own sweet mother used to leave us three kids in the car while she ran in for a few groceries. She’d probably be arrested today.
Once when I was in 6th grade, my own dad got really – REALLY mad with me being a smartmouth, pushed me down on the floor, and shook me with both hands tightly around my neck.
He was very sorry about it later that evening and apologized for losing control, but imagine if someone had posted him on YouTube. My mom and dad are very loving and caring people and took good care of us. These incidents were isolated acts of human beings just trying to sort out the difficult life of being a parent, and not always getting it right.
But according to the mindset of YouTube, maybe I should have been a foster kid too, so that the Internet masses can feel better about themselves.
I agree that jail is overkill, here. I appreciate the validation of a jury that she took the punishments too far, but she doesn’t need to spend time in jail over this.
I don’t think a misdemeanor prosecution is overkill, but probation and mandatory classes in parenting and maybe anger management would probably be a much more appropriate sentence than jail time.
That’s true. Here’s hoping she doesn’t go to jail (unless there’s more to the story than what I’m seeing).
Kuri, that entire discussion about the % of revenues that were “given to charity” was ridiculous.
The LDS Church is a charitable institution. Its stated mission has been to share the gospel throughout the world, to perfect and strengthen the members, and to redeem the dead.
Those are its “charitable” purposes. You may not like them. You may not agree with them, but I would submit that 100% of the “revenues” generated by the LDS Church are used for these purposes.
When I give my money to a charity, I don’t expect them to turn around and donate it to some other charity. I expect them to use it to provide whatever it is that they provide, to do with it whatever it is that they do. That’s why I give it to them.
You said, “Id prefer that churches use their billions on direct aid to needy people.” Then I guess you can try to find a church whose stated purpose is to give all the money they raise in direct aid to needy people.
Later on you say, “I prefer my objective measure. You can prefer your subjective measure.”
And you state, “What you consider useful may not be what I consider useful. Ergo, no point arguing that.”
So if I string together everything you said throughout the thread, the only objective measure of charity is in dollars because otherwise we are valuing the charity subjectively. You’ve also suggested that the LDS Church brings in $6 Billion annually. And you’ve implied that UMC brings in less than that.
Since the entire $6 Billion is used for charitable purposes (assuming you still don’t think there’s any point to arguing how “useful” those purposes are), then according to your logic, the LDS Church is doing a better job than UMC at being charitable.
Take a deep breath now. You have to admit (although I know you won’t) that my argument here is not only clever, but extremely compelling.
Since when was charity about money?
Charity (practice), the practice of benevolent giving and caring
Charity (virtue), the Christian theological concept of unlimited love and kindness
Since we as Christians are trying to be more Christ-like, why don’t you tell me how much money Christ “donated to charity”?
Or were Christ’s charitable acts a little more like the stated mission of the LDS Church?
Can I get an Amen?
Or maybe a Boo-ya?
Well, it’s a good point, and I agree. But I’m trying to wind down my pursuit of this argument. It was an off-topic adventure on my part to begin with.
JJL9,
I only said one of the many things you attribute to me. (Protip: Each comment has the commenter’s name attached.) But you’re right otherwise. Christ did build several shopping malls in the New Testament.
That’s right, he left worthy and useful projects like that to his followers.
Woops.
Kuri & Profxm, that entire discussion about the % of revenues that were given to charity was ridiculous.
The LDS Church is a charitable institution. Its stated mission has been to share the gospel throughout the world, to perfect and strengthen the members, and to redeem the dead.
Those are its charitable purposes. You may not like them. You may not agree with them, but I would submit that 100% of the revenues generated by the LDS Church are used for these purposes.
When I give my money to a charity, I dont expect them to turn around and donate it to some other charity. I expect them to use it to provide whatever it is that they provide, to do with it whatever it is that they do. Thats why I give it to them.
You said, Id prefer that churches use their billions on direct aid to needy people. Then I guess you can try to find a church whose stated purpose is to give all the money they raise in direct aid to needy people.
Later on you say, I prefer my objective measure. You can prefer your subjective measure.
And you state, What you consider useful may not be what I consider useful. Ergo, no point arguing that.
So if I string together everything you said throughout the thread, the only objective measure of charity is in dollars because otherwise we are valuing the charity subjectively. Youve also suggested that the LDS Church brings in $6 Billion annually. And youve implied that UMC brings in less than that.
Since the entire $6 Billion is used for charitable purposes (assuming you still dont think theres any point to arguing how useful those purposes are), then according to your logic, the LDS Church is doing a better job than UMC at being charitable.
Take a deep breath now. You have to admit (although I know you wont) that my argument here is not only clever, but extremely compelling.
Since when was charity about money?
Charity (practice), the practice of benevolent giving and caring
Charity (virtue), the Christian theological concept of unlimited love and kindness
Since we as Christians are trying to be more Christ-like, why dont you tell me how much money Christ donated to charity?
Or were Christs charitable acts a little more like the stated mission of the LDS Church?
JJL9,
If LDS Inc. stopped trying to convert the world, would government have any obligation to step in and provide that service? If the answer is “No,” which is what the answer is to that question, then what the LDS Church does is only “charitable” from the perspective of the LDS Church. It’s not a charity to me.
Call it a charity. Believe that you’re donating your money to charity. Go for it. I’m not able to stop you. But it uses very little of its money directly addressing the physical needs of people and most of it on institutional maintenance and some of it on addressing the “spiritual needs” of people, which is arguably not charitable depending on your perspective.
Then why do you even care? If those of us who do consider the activities of the LDS Church to be “charitable” choose to support those activities, why do you possibly care?
Do you see any of us dumping on whatever it is you consider to be charitable?
You keep referring to the physical needs of people. At least you have the honesty to clarify that you are only really talking about your own perspective.
From a broader perspective, the Christian definition of charity is generally something like this:
Charity (virtue), the Christian theological concept of unlimited love and kindness
Christ called himself the bread of life, and asked his followers to drink his living waters. I’m sure you already know this, but his point was that one’s spiritual wellbeing is of eternal importance, and more important than their physical needs.
Either way, you certainly don’t have to agree with his perspective. You can support whatever charitable cause you want to, but why not let others do the same in peace?
It’s probably a debate for a different forum at a different time, but when you say, “would government have any obligation to step in and provide that service?” I would argue that NOTHING that falls within the realm of charity falls under the obligation of government.
Well, I agree with the point that defining charity as “whatever the government would have to provide if no one else was” is…. well, lacking as a definition at best.
Oh, I’d say around the 8th century BC in the West, and 11th century BC in China when coinage began. Before that, you had bartering in which “money” took the form of food or services. And before that, human societies were non-capitalist gift economies.
This is not to say that charity is all about money: it can be about time, or this kind of “Christian” wholesomeness being talked about, but charity is certainly not not about money in this day and age.
Yeah just like mammals are certainly not NOT about cats.
RE #69:
“Its probably a debate for a different forum at a different time, but when you say, would government have any obligation to step in and provide that service? I would argue that NOTHING that falls within the realm of charity falls under the obligation of government.”
You sure about that?
So, if I volunteer at my kid’s school helping teach kids to read, the government has no obligation to provide that service? What about feeding people? If the soup kitchen funded by a religion in the city next to mine shuts down, does the government have an obligation to feed those people? What about housing? What about medical care?
RE #70:
It may be lacking, but I never said it was the entire definition or description of charity. It is, however, a good measure of something that qualifies as a charity.
Well yeah, but you could also say the US Marine Corp is a “charitable organization” under that train of thought.
Interesting way to describe them, I guess.
In the New Testament, Jesus spends most of his time doing things like healing people, telling them to be kind to one another, and condemning rich people. If a church wants to be like Jesus, it can do the same things. Or it can do other stuff, like laying up treasures for itself on earth.
Obviously we’re not all meant to be literally like Jesus in every aspect. Even his own disciples weren’t exactly like him.
Jesus never had to administer an actual CHURCH in the first place.
So the comparison here is not apt at all.
Well, obviously, when Jesus said that people can’t serve God and money at the same time, or when he told that guy to sell everything he owned, or when he said it’s awfully hard for rich people to go to heaven, or when he said woe unto you rich people, or (especially) when he said do as you have seen me do, none of that applies to his church or its members. Obviously, he only meant it to apply to people who don’t believe in him. Or something.
I mean, I’m sure Jesus understands. “We can’t waste our precious resources on helping people materially; we have a church to run!”
The mall does help people. A lot of people as it so happens.
And the church isn’t a person.
No one is getting rich here Kuri. You’ve never once been able to demonstrate that anyone – anywhere in this organization is making a killing off this whole thing.
Sorry to interrupt, but just wanted to note that Hot Sauce Mom is going home. No fine, no jail. The judge did order that she 1) continue counseling and 2) sit down with John Dehlin to record a Mormon Stories podcast about the ordeal.
Jesus said you can’t serve two masters (God and money). I think that means that if anyone — person or organization — sets out to make and keep a lot of money, they’ll end up serving their money first and God second.
And everything you say just keeps proving my point. You’re absolutely right. The church can’t just give its money away willy-nilly. It has to use it prudently. It has to invest it carefully. It has to get a reasonable return.
Obviously. It has to serve its money. Just like I said. Just like Jesus said.
I don’t know about 2) — that could be cruel and unusual punishment — but otherwise I think it was a reasonable sentence.
Kuri, isn’t this rather absolutist thinking on your part?
Jesus had a lot of contradictory messages throughout his ministry, as it so happens. You keep bringing up the example of the “God and Mammon” statement. Well, let me give you another Jesus moment:
Parable of the Talents.
Hmm… I always thought the PARABLE of the talents was about improving yourself, not making money.
And was that meant to be taken literally, as a lesson on money management?
Oh, NOW you don’t want to be a literalist Kuri?
Make up your mind.
RE #73
You sure about that? YES
So, if I volunteer at my kids school helping teach kids to read, the government has no obligation to provide that service? NO
What about feeding people? NO
If the soup kitchen funded by a religion in the city next to mine shuts down, does the government have an obligation to feed those people? NO
What about housing? NO
What about medical care? NO
Let me guess, you’re an extreme libertarian, right JJL9? Or are you an anarchist? What responsibilities should the government have? Any?
RE #84
So according to your theory, Christ used an example involving what you deem to be the completely evil practice of increase one’s ability to provide for themselves and others, (making money, and saving money, and investing money in order to increase the amount of money), as a lesson about “improving yourself” even though that practice would actually be evil?
So, if I take it literally when Jesus speaks plainly, I’m also supposed to take it literally when he speaks in parables? I think Emerson had something to say about that kind of thinking.
What responsibilities should government have?
Government should have whatever responsibilities the governed wish government to have, so long as they do not violate the rights of others.
You have a right to protect yourself from those that would violate your natural rights, those that would take what is yours, those that would do harm to you or your family, those that would attempt to stop you from doing things you have a right to do, like entering into voluntary transactions of any nature with other free and peaceful people, those that would attempt to force you to do things that you have no obligation to do, etc…
Since you have those rights, you and everyone else, can collectively delegate the authority to exercise those rights for you.
You don’t have the right to take what is mine in order to provide something for other people. As such, you cannot authorize government to do that either.
You could authorize the government to accept voluntary donations to provide for others.
What if the governed wished the government to occupy a foreign nation (possibly killing foreign civilians in the process) in order to, say, facilitate the flow of oil to the governed.
Would that violate the rights of others?
That would, in fact, undoubtedly, unequivicolly, unquestionably, certainly, inarguably, violate the rights of others.
OK, no further questions.
p.s. JJL9, I’m glad to see you’ve picked up on our style here and you’re now helping Seth in providing an alternate viewpoint and keeping us from being an echo chamber. 🙂
“You don’t have the right to take what is mine in order to provide something for other people. As such, you cannot authorize government to do that either.”
Um, what are taxes? Aren’t your taxes being taken to provide something for other people? (e.g., roads in Vermont, homes for flood victims, etc.) Are you saying government should not have the right to collect taxes unless you are a direct beneficiary of the taxes you pay?
Good attempt Kuri.
But the talk about “two masters” was also using figurative imagery as well.
No dice.
Um, what are taxes?
Well, to the extent that those taxes are not used to protect your natural rights, they are basically theft. The government has no right to take your money and use it for purposes other than those that you choose to have it used for.
JJL9, I was hoping you would say that. I never supported the war in Iraq. Do I now have the right to sue the government for spending my tax dollars on that war since they basically stole my money? Since you’ve made this purely subjective, I’m going to run with it.
Returning this to the issue of charity… If I choose to have the government spend my tax dollars feeding, clothing, housing, educating, and providing healthcare for the poor, then the government has an obligation to do so, by your own logic. Ergo, that is not theft. And, to continue this train of thought, if a NGO charity were providing those services but was forced to stop providing them, and I believe it is a requirement that the government provide them, then the government must provide them. Ergo, the criteria I laid out for charity is sound – albeit subjective.
Find me someone who thinks the government should provide religious services if religions stop providing them. If the government should not provide them, and everyone agrees that is the case, then how are those services “for the public good” and why should they qualify as charitable?
“Find me someone who thinks the government should provide religious services if religions stop providing them. ”
How exactly does the state-religion system in places like Germany and Norway work?
I don’t know the details for Germany or Norway, but I could tell you a little bit about how it works in Switzerland.
Of course, the magic of the Internet is that if you want to know, you’re undoubtedly not very far from the information! 😀
Seth,
If you can’t tell the difference between Jesus talking about money while using “figurative imagery” and Jesus talking about something else while using money as “figurative imagery,” I fear there’s no point in ever discussing the Bible with you.
I can tell the difference.
It’s just that in this case it is small, and in any event, irrelevant for our purposes.
Seth, the governments in Western European countries that retain a state church collect tax revenue. That money is then transferred to the state church as revenue.
Ironically, most of those churches are empty. If anyone wants to make an argument here about “wasteful government spending,” the state churches of Western Europe would certainly qualify. If the US government funded a hospital and no one showed up to take advantage of the free services, libertarians and conservatives would freak out about wasteful government spending. But give religions tax breaks, including religions where virtually no one shows up, and conservatives (not necessarily libertarians) think it is as it should be.
Here’s the real metaphor:
“Give the people a fish, conservatives will condemn those giving and receiving as encouraging laziness. Give the people a figurative fish and conservatives will want the government to subsidize it and expect it to actually solve all of peoples’ problems.”
RE #98
I’ll address the three paragraphs separately.
#1: Do you now have the right to sue the government for spending tax dollars on that war since they stole your money?
That’s a hard one to answer. What I can say with certainty is that the government did not have the right to wage that war, and that “it” did not have the right to use your money either.
But when you say “sue” you are talking about using the remedies of the very government that violated your rights. According to the remedies of that govrnment, you do not have the legal right to sue them.
That doesn’t make them right and you wrong. That makes them tyrannical and you an unwitting subject to them.
If said government was operating by the consent of the governed (ie, you), then they wouldn’t need to use the threat of force, imprisonment, and ultimately death to force you to pay for that war. That is, in fact, the force they use to collect those taxes if you attempt to opt out.
Governments around the world act unjustly all day every day. That doesn’t mean they have the “right” to act that way. It just means that they have the power to do so (mostly because those who are being oppressed are allowing themselves to be oppressed). And although the “governed” may not, under the regulations of said government, have the “legal right” to address these injustices, they do have the “natural right” to do so.
So, I guess the answer would be that you do not have the legal right to sue the federal government for your tax money that was spent on the war, but you do have the natural right to do whatever is necessary to restore your right to not spend your money on wars like that.
And by the way, forget Iraq. We are currently spending $900,000,000 per week in Afghanistan. $900,000,000. Per week.
#2 Your entire premise is that if you choose to have government spend your tax dollars doing all those things, then it is not theft, and that since you want the government to do those things, then the government is required to provide them.
One little problem with that theory. You alone are not “the governed” here. You and I and everyone else are. So just because you want the government to do something doesn’t mean that the government suddenly has the consent of the governed to do it.
On the other hand, if you and those that do want those things done with your money, voluntarily gave the government or any other entity, your money to be used for those purposes, that would be perfectly reasonable.
This brings up the concept of the Constitution. We may be a democracy, but the states only agreed to be part of that democracy because they believed that the ratification of the Constitution would protect the natural rights of the states and the people. That was, for the most part, the case in the beginning. 200 + years later, that is no longer the case. The federal government has usurped your natural rights, in direct violation of its only source of authority.
Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
#3 Charity is defined as “the practice of benevolent giving and caring”. Why does it matter to you if the LDS Church and those that support it believe that what they are doing qualifies as being charitable? Why don’t you just go about your business and do what you believe to be charitable? Why are you even discussing the concept that something should “qualify as” being charitable? The whole notion is ridiculous.
When it comes to wealth and family ties, the Jesus of the Bible renounces both. He is not “figurative” about this. At the time, primogeniture was in effect (wealth passed to first born son) — and even now, wealth and family are intertwined. But regarding discipleship, at Luke 9:58-62 when people wanted to say goodbye to their families before following Jesus, Jesus basically told them it was unnecessary.
As I pointed out at Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus talks about there being no marriage in Heaven. It’s clear to me that Mormons take what they want from Jesus’s ministry and words and disregard the rest (or reduce it to “figurative language”). They imagine him into somebody he wasn’t for the sake of their own organization. (Not that any conservative churches are any closer, though.)
I don’t think Jesus would have said his 12 disciples were closer to God simply because they had a closer relationship with him. I’m pretty sure that Jesus thought Martha “got it” more than Paul. But yet, the LDS Church treats the Quorum of the 12 as having a more direct relationship with God. The relationship between money and ecclesiastical power is obvious. Even if President Monson isn’t living in a mansion, the way the faith is organized creates undue power relationships. I know the purpose of the 12 is to keep everyone on track and to keep the thing moving as a whole (they’re there to “serve” until Christ returns), but like I said, Martha “got it” more than Paul. It makes a person wonder what exactly the Church is doing with its amassment of funds and hierarchical structure. Perhaps it’s made the mistake of serving the wrong master?
Two points. First, arguing about government mandates will always be subjective. What you want and what I want are unlikely to be the same. Claiming the government is engaging in theft or other unjust activities based on the desires of individuals isn’t going to go very far.
Second, ridiculous to debate charity status? Short response: Scientology. Long response: If charities were not given any privileges in society, I’d agree with you. However, they are (no income tax, no property taxes, no capital gains taxes, etc.). So, I have reason to debate this.
#1 It isn’t going to go very far? It went pretty far when the American colonists told the mother country to pound sand, then pledged their lives, their treasure, and their sacred honor to secure those natural rights that were duly theirs.
#2 Then the argument should be that charities no longer be given any “privileges in society.” That’s an arugment I can agree with. It makes sense that I should be able to support whatever charity I choose and you too. It doesn’t make sense that someone should be out there difining what does and does not qualify as charity.
*defining
Alan, organization goes hand-in-hand with hierarchy. Any time you have a group of people organized, there is going to be a hierarchy.
I didn’t catch the memo that just because Jesus arrived, the laws of human behavior were suddenly revoked.
The more organized you get, the more hierarchy you are going to get. Period. No way around it.
I’ve read through the Four Gospels a few times, and I didn’t see the part where Jesus forbade religion from being organized and ordered us to all go live off welfare while preaching.
JJL9
#1 – not really that interested in this topic. I’m going to let it drop.
#2 – We actually agree! (And lo, the heavens did shake and the earth did tremble!)
That would solve the problem. If religions/charities received no special tax treatment from the government, I would absolutely take your advice and drop the issue. So, you going to start lobbying for that? 😉
I’m not going to “start” lobbying for that because I have been lobbying for just that for a long time now, and will continue to do so. The same goes for tax breaks and incentives for companies and individuals. The same goes for different tax rates for different people, for any reason, be it their salary bracket or otherwise.
The same line of reasoning solves the gay marriage dilemma in my opinion.
In my opinion, marriage is a covenant between two people. I happen to believe that marriage in the temple, involving a sealing for time and all eternity, is the only way to go.
But I also recognize that you have every right to get married wherever you please, with whomever you please, and by whatever ceremony or manner you please.
I don’t think government should recognize or sanction gay marriage. I don’t think government has any business getting in the middle of any marriage.
Take away any recognition by government of marriage and the gay marriage debate goes away. You can jump across a broom with your 2nd cousin or marry your rommate George in San Francisco. It doesn’t affect me. But the second government starts treating “married” people differently, all of a sudden we have to debate what qualifies as marriage. Whey should people be taxed differently because they are married? They shouldn’t. But they are. Take away any kind of government or legal incentive for married people and you end the gay marriage debate.
Seth @ 109:
Sure. But think about this in terms of martial arts. There is a master who knows more than the student, but there’s never an assumption that the master will always be more masterful than the student. Conversely, the Church’s hierarchy is practically static (not to mention, the “mastery” principle is questionable).
“No member of the Church is esteemed by the Lord as more or less than any other.”
http://lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-weak-and-the-simple-of-the-church?lang=eng&query=no+position+church+less+important
Sure, but that’s the Lord esteeming people. I’m talking about the Church itself.
That talk was given by the acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church, ie it came from the Church itself. In other words, the Church itself asserts that no member of the Church is esteemed less than any other.
Perhaps there are members that esteem one member above another, perhaps the Prophet or the General Authorities.
Both those are people, not “the Church itself”.
Or how about this: the Church is structured so that some members come to be esteemed above others, which is contradictory to Christ’s teaching.
If that’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it.
But since Christ himself is directing the organization of the Church it is not likely to be contradictory to his teachings.
Well, as it turns out, it’s not just my opinion. It’s one of the major gripes evangelicals have toward Mormonism.
Congratulations. You and the evangelicals can spend your lives having gripes toward Mormonism. I hope you find that fulfilling.
Alan, Evangelicalism has organizational dysfunctionality as one of it’s core founding values.
[sorry Jack – I do acknowledge that others would characterize it differently]
OF COURSE you’re going to find a lot of people in that faith tradition with a phobia towards anything that even hints of “getting organized.”
That’s hardly a news flash.
Well, as I said @112, I wasn’t talking about “getting organized.” I was talking about “getting hierarchical.” I disagree that organization requires static hierarchies.
Organization may get away with fluidity for a short period.
But it’s not going to last long. It will inevitably become hierarchical. Honestly, the real surprise of the LDS Church is how little abuse of the hierarchy there is.