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…
What is it with Utah and standing ovations?
Before Kevin Garn got his Big O, Cardinal Francis George brought a BYU crowd of 12,000 to their feet. I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Hey preacher, leave those kids alone!
I have a 6-year old daughter, and one issue that will start coming up soon is baptism. It’s not the actual baptism that bothers me; I basically see it as a rite of passage. I think eight years old is far too young to decide to join a religion, but…
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.