An article in the most recent Dialogue Journal is called "An Open Letter to Bishops" by Bryant Skeen Thompson. In one section, he quotes Elder Holland:
...For those who require welfare assistance, provide this aid generously and, above all, in a manner consistent with the character of the Savior. It is your duty to seek out the poor and needy and to help them in a manner that teaches them, builds them up, and enables them to see their divine worth. As you contemplate how to help those in need, consider how you might respond if a grandparent, parent, sibling, or child were to need such assistance. Then, help these good brothers and sisters in that same way: generously and compassionately—never in a condescending manner. Elder Holland said, “If we could do more to alleviate poverty, as Jesus repeatedly commands us to do, maybe some of the less fortunate in the world could hum a few notes of ‘There Is Sunshine in My Soul Today.’ . . . I pray we will not let these children of God suffer in silence and that we will be endowed with His capacity to hear the songs they cannot now sing.”[8] As you prioritize helping others generously, you will feel heaven’s approval. You will see with new eyes and feel the awe-inspiring love the Savior has for those who struggle.
I'm having a difficult time with Holland's advice that "If we could do more to alleviate poverty, as Jesus repeatedly commands us to do, maybe some of the less fortunate in the world could hum a few notes of ‘There Is Sunshine in My Soul Today.’ . . . I pray we will not let these children of God suffer in silence."
The disconnect between Holland's prayer and the lds church's hoarding of the hundreds of billions of dollars that grew out of left-over tithing is jarring.
How is it possible for a bishop-or anyone serving in the lds church- to read that advice, and not wonder what is really going on?
I looked up the source of the Holland quote. I didn't think it was possible to be more sickened by the two-faced attitude, but yes, it is. Here is the context of Holland's 2017 quoted words.
Holland wrote:
When I see the staggering economic inequality in the world, I feel guilty singing with Mrs. Hewitt of “blessings which [God] gives me now [and] joys ‘laid up’ above.”7 That chorus cannot be fully, faithfully sung until we have honorably cared for the poor.
Economic deprivation is a curse that keeps on cursing, year after year and generation after generation. It damages bodies, maims spirits, harms families, and destroys dreams. If we could do more to alleviate poverty, as Jesus repeatedly commands us to do, maybe some of the less fortunate in the world could hum a few notes of “There Is Sunshine in My Soul Today,” perhaps for the first time in their lives.
I am disgusted by the shamefulness of Holland speaking these words while sitting on 100s of billions of dollars, saved by hoarding "leftover tithing," and bypassing the spirit of the law of tax-exempt donations. Holland even states he understands the curse of poverty, "year after year." There is so much these lds leaders could do, but instead they sit on a hoard and destroy generation after generation instead of doing what they can to lift the "curse" as he calls it, of" economic deprivation," while continuing to threaten even the poorest with withheld blessings if they don't pay into this hoard with money they cannot afford to waste.
What a shameful history these lds leaders are engaging in. What an embarrassment.
Their are going for the gold for church hypocrisy of the year... looks like they are in first place, they may get to the goal by the New Year! This is a major stellar accomplishment. Hypocrite of the Year is a highly valued and honored reward for churches, and Mormonism has finally come of age! Go Hypocrites of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints!
When I was a bishop I had practically unlimited access to money to support the poor. I provided support for members and nonmembers alike. I served as the Transient Bishop for two years -- a stake wide calling. Lots of drug addicts and homeless people coming through my stake. I provided support and put them up in apartments. I remember providing support for a former Primary President's counselor of mine who became a meth addict and lost her children to her ex husband. She was living in her car turning tricks.
On on occasion, a member of the County Board of Supervisors called me directly and asked me to provide support for two married ex-CHP officers who were not members of the Church but who had cashed out their pensions for a losing speculative investment. I did it.
Of course, I didn't go crazy and give what was asked merely because it was asked. And I tried to steer them first to the bishop's storehouse. About 50% of the time, I was told that the applicant declined to go to the storehouse to pick up food and so I didn't provide money for food.
And I, as a personal matter, never provided money to make a mortgage payment. Some of those requests were crazy -- $8000 on an underwater home. Instead, I would provide money to pay what would be a reasonable rent. Some of the people my ward supported were on support for the entire time of my calling -- seven years. And, some of them I would consider to be able-bodied. They just didn't want to work.
But I would provide advice. I would advise members to walk away from their homes if the mortgage was higher than its value. ("My wife won't accept living in a lesser home.") I would advise members to surrender their cars to the bank. ("I don't want the hit to my credit.") I would advise young married couples to go first to their parents for support.
I bought cars. I spend several thousand dollars for a car for a non-member coming out of prison who was married to a member. I paid for new dentures. I paid for medical procedures. In addition to the normal stuff -- food and rent.
I had the occasion to review the contribution patterns of other bishops, and saw that one bishop paid $40K in one year to one family, which family later turned against the Church.
The amount of wealth the church has had nothing to do with what I could spend.
And nobody ever questioned my expenditures. Nor did any training session I ever had with the stake president give me any "guidelines." I do recall, however, that the Church had some sort of review process for medical procedures, requiring the bishop to access public funds after a certain amount was spent. I never ran up against that limit.
Last edited by Bought Yahoo on Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If I may mix metaphors, it seems that you were at one extreme end of the well-known "Bishop Roulette".
I don't think so. I think I was in the middle. I know there are pretty tough cheapo bishops, but there were none in my stake the years I served, and I know that because as Transient Bishop I could see what was going on.
If I may mix metaphors, it seems that you were at one extreme end of the well-known "Bishop Roulette".
I don't think so. I think I was in the middle. I know there are pretty tough cheapo bishops, but there were none in my stake the years I served, and I know that because as Transient Bishop I could see what was going on.
So, based on your say so ('l was in the middle'), at least half the lds bishops were unlimited in what they could spend, and at least half spent more than you, and were more generous.
I haven't been reading your posts for long, but given the situation we now see, and what I read of your comments, I am not inclined to believe this. Maybe you were a one-off whose spending was unlimited, but without some hard evidence, believing half of lds bishops were generous like you and also were unlimited in their spending (the implication of you being in the middle) is not a credible argument. If you have better evidence than your single anecdote, please post it.
I don't think so. I think I was in the middle. I know there are pretty tough cheapo bishops, but there were none in my stake the years I served, and I know that because as Transient Bishop I could see what was going on.
So, based on your say so ('l was in the middle'), at least half the lds bishops were unlimited in what they could spend, and at least half spent more than you, and were more generous.
I haven't been reading your posts for long, but given the situation we now see, and what I read of your comments, I am not inclined to believe this. Maybe you were a one-off whose spending was unlimited, but without some hard evidence, believing half of lds bishops were generous like you and also were unlimited in their spending (the implication of you being in the middle) is not a credible argument. If you have better evidence than your single anecdote, please post it.
Believe what you want. I no longer consider myself a really true believer.
There were no cheapo bishops in my stake. We were repeatedly told to be more generous than our natural inclinations to tell people to buck it up. And, there were no limits on my spending. None ever stated. None ever implied. And not limited to members.
Perhaps mine was an atypical ward. Five million dollar homes and trailer parks. Hookers on the street.