DiscussMormonism.com

Bob's post in the thread about Elder Wirthlin got me thinking:

He was my bishop when my father died, leaving behind a 29-year-old widow and four children. He is the reason I remain active in the Church and believe.

For whatever reason, Bob's post sparked a memory in me that I've shared before, but I'll share it again, for those who haven't heard it.

When my mother became pregnant with me, she had three children, the oldest of whom was 5. Dad was working on a Ph.D. at USC and working one day a week for an aerospace company. They had very little money and were living in a garage apartment behind someone's house. And of course they had no health insurance.

A few months into the pregnancy my mom started having problems, mostly pain and bleeding. The doctor urged her to abort, as clearly she would not carry me to term. When she said that wasn't an option, he told her she'd have to stay in bed for the rest of the pregnancy. My brother and two sisters went off to Utah to stay with my grandparents so my mom could rest.

When I was born, the doctor said I looked normal and healthy, which he considered a miracle. But a serious birth defect was detected, and I had major surgery the day I was born. Over the next five years I spent one or two nights a week in the hospital to have my esophagus dilated.

My dad had to quit school and go to work full-time (he never did finish his Ph.D.) to begin paying off the mountain of medical bills.

Throughout that six-year period, no one from the church helped out. No one babysat, no one brought in meals, nothing. Years later, the former Relief Society president approached my mom and tearfully begged her forgiveness for not helping. She said that in ward council, the bishop had said that no one was to help the Williams family because my father was not a full tithe payer. So no one did.

My father never told me this story until about five years ago. And I was thinking that, if Bob's bishop's example had kept Bob in the church, my parents' bishop should have driven me out of the church. But it didn't. My leaving the church had nothing to do with his appalling behavior, and frankly nothing anyone has done in the church has ever affected my beliefs about Mormonism.

I left because it isn't true. All the good or bad bishops in the world don't change that.

I did not know that story. I am saddened by this harsh bishop. I can recall often being urged by members of a PEC that I should not assist those who were less active, or I should require tithing and church attendance before I assisted someone. I always listened respectfully and then would state that based on what I understood about Jesus command that as we do to the least we do to him I found it better to help. I said that I always encouraged church attendance and tithing when I met with less active persons in need. But I refused to make it a requirement to feed someone or to make sure their rent was paid or they had heat.

I really am not boasting about this. Maybe I was too liberal. But I get sad, very sad when I hear about harsh bishops. I believe if there is a God that he will not be happy with such behavior.

It is very appropriate for a bishop to require church attendance, activity and charity work (where it can be done) as a condition to church assistance. Perhaps not the first time the request is made, and maybe not the second, but for successive requests, yes.

The rule is honored in the breach all the time. I am a transient bishop and give out thousands of dollars of church funds to non-members who know nothing about the Church but who are homeless and told by county social workers to go see Bishop so-and-so. But, continued support requires activity -- not membership (although others might disagree). There are many factors that weigh on this decision -- single mothers, elderly people, disabled children, disabled adults, and so forth.

In the case of Runtu's family, I can't speak to the circumstances except to observe that I can see a bishop making that call if the family was inactive and (not or) indifferent. I don't provide support for people who are desperate, whom I meet with, who have able-bodied adults living in the household who express hostility to the Church and refuse to discuss with me the conditions of the support I might offer -- like, attending church and coming down to the building once a week to help clean up.

The very idea that people leave because they were offended by what someone did in the church is so ludicrous, it's not even to be considered. It has to be one of the flimsiest self defense mechanisms church members have ever come up with to defend their beliefs.

- Would you stop going to a gym/workout facility if someone there offended you?
- Would you quit watching your favorite sports team if another fan offended you?
- Would you take your child out of a school if one of the other kids' parents offended you?

If anyone would answer yes to any of these questions, they need to grow up. No mature person would let what one person says or does affect a major part of their life like that. I think the same thing can easily be applied to a person's church.

No, most people leave the church because it's obviously a scam. Members can't possibly think that, so they have to rely on the stupid "he/she was offended" excuse.

rcrocket wrote:It is very appropriate for a bishop to require church attendance, activity and charity work (where it can be done) as a condition to church assistance. Perhaps not the first time the request is made, and maybe not the second, but for successive requests, yes.

The rule is honored in the breach all the time. I am a transient bishop and give out thousands of dollars of church funds to non-members who know nothing about the Church but who are homeless and told by county social workers to go see Bishop so-and-so. But, continued support requires activity -- not membership (although others might disagree). There are many factors that weigh on this decision -- single mothers, elderly people, disabled children, disabled adults, and so forth.

In the case of Runtu's family, I can't speak to the circumstances except to observe that I can see a bishop making that call if the family was inactive and (not or) indifferent. I don't provide support for people who are desperate, whom I meet with, who have able-bodied adults living in the household who express hostility to the Church and refuse to discuss with me the conditions of the support I might offer -- like, attending church and coming down to the building once a week to help clean up.

Yeah, I don't think the church should either. They should save that money to spend on overpriced malls and stuff. That's what a religion is all about.

Bob, the bishop handing out cash to people is one thing, but why would it be reasonable for a bishop to tell the Relief Society not to bring over meals, or help watch a kid, or some other type of assistance?

It brings to mind the quote, I forget exactly who said it, but from one of the Apostles explaining calmly how the love of God is conditional, in a way that just flies in the face of the traditional claims of Christianity.

Sethbag wrote:Bob, the bishop handing out cash to people is one thing, but why would it be reasonable for a bishop to tell the Relief Society not to bring over meals, or help watch a kid, or some other type of assistance?

It brings to mind the quote, I forget exactly who said it, but from one of the Apostles explaining calmly how the love of God is conditional, in a way that just flies in the face of the traditional claims of Christianity.

I was not there and thus I can't really comment all that much without giving offense. A lot of factors weigh into the decision to do such a thing, including bishop error.

It is very appropriate for a bishop to require church attendance, activity and charity work (where it can be done) as a condition to church assistance. Perhaps not the first time the request is made, and maybe not the second, but for successive requests, yes.

I see nothing wrong with urging, prodding,having the recipient do something or another for what they receive and so on. But I never felt I wanted to deny food for many who even with all my prodding did not comply. I could have been wrong on this.

The rule is honored in the breach all the time. I am a transient bishop and give out thousands of dollars of church funds to non-members who know nothing about the Church but who are homeless and told by county social workers to go see Bishop so-and-so.

Likewise.

But, continued support requires activity -- not membership (although others might disagree). There are many factors that weigh on this decision -- single mothers, elderly people, disabled children, disabled adults, and so forth.

While that is preferred who says that continues support requires activity, which I think you mean Church activity. I think that call is left up to individual bishops. My preference was to err on the side of generosity if I made errors.

In the case of Runtu's family, I can't speak to the circumstances except to observe that I can see a bishop making that call if the family was inactive and (not or) indifferent.

Depends on the circumstances I never would have directed no help be given to a non tithe payer in need. What about just taking in a meal or offering to watch the kids or visiting Runtu at the hospital. If I read this correctly the bishop forbid ALL help because they were not full tithe payers. I think that is wrong.

I don't provide support for people who are desperate, whom I meet with, who have able-bodied adults living in the household who express hostility to the Church and refuse to discuss with me the conditions of the support I might offer -- like, attending church and coming down to the building once a week to help clean up.

If there are able bodies adults who are hostile this seems a different matter than what I am talking about.

No, most people leave the church because it's obviously a scam. Members can't possibly think that, so they have to rely on the stupid "he/she was offended" excuse.

Actually people leave the Church for a variety of reasons. Some do leave because someone offends them. Some leave because they do not want to commit to some of the requirements, be it time, money, rules, etc. Some leave because they become bored or apathetic and really do not care much for religion. Some leave because they do not believe any more. I have seen people leave for all these reasons and not one more than another really. Well save apathy. Most that leave seem to quit participating and loose interest. There may be other things tied to that but mostly just apathy.

I was not there and thus I can't really comment all that much without giving offense. A lot of factors weigh into the decision to do such a thing, including bishop error.

I gotta agree with Bob here. Being a bishop is tough and they do make mistakes.