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
Thinking About You
I got into trouble in fifth grade and I think about it every week. It was in the beginning of the school year. We had just switched from elementary to prep school. Except for three of us, everyone else was new.
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…
Spain Investigates Jay Bybee for Torture
According to Harper’s, Spanish authorities are investigating Bush administration officials for torture. That includes the former BYU law professor Jay Bybee who signed off on John Yoo’s infamous torture memos. The premier Spanish newspaper El PaÃs reports that judge Baltasar Garzón is involved in the investigation. Garzon is famous for…
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! 😀