From Mormon Women, a Flood of Requests and Questions on Their Role in the Church | NY Times

[bigb]

The last I heard, Bishops had been instructed to not let any person in their ward (member or not) go without. That being said, every Bishop is in charge of his own ward and how he distributes the help. I personally think it's ridiculous to require someone to catch up on tithing as a pre-requisite to receive aid. If they could afford tithing, they could afford the other things. As far as the selling of the cars, that I can believe. Any source of income is "expected" to be met before the Church grants money. If a car can be sold, maybe it should. I don't know if I would go that far as a Bishop (thankfully, I highly doubt the Lord wants me to be a Bishop). Bishops have been instructed to have people ask for help from any form possible before giving money. That includes extended family and the government. After my second kid was born, we literally went like 4 months averaging about 4 hours of restless sleep per day. Somewhere in the haze, I mistakenly wrote a tithing check for the entire amount of my paycheck. Suddenly, we couldn't afford to pay our bills. Work had been really slow and we weren't getting a consistent paycheck. We went to the Bishop and explained the situation and asked for some assistance in the amount of the "overpayment". That son of a bitch had the nerve to tell me that once money has been paid to the Church it belongs to the Church. I already knew this and told him that I didn't want the ward to cut me a check, I wanted to ward to help pay my bills for like a month. His response was that I should talk to my parents. I work for my dad and he wasn't getting paid either. He still refused to do it. Right then and there I vowed to NEVER pay a fast offering while he was my Bishop again. I told him that to his face as well.
Like has been mentioned, the Church has billions and it seems like every ward has a few people who are living off the Church as a career. I think they could and should do better for their members who rarely need it and come upon some hard times.

 

[babe]

I look good in reds and greens, as well.



Here, the shackles are the ones your traditions have put on other people. Gender essentialism tells us that the person genetically XY can be a female if they have a physical condition, like androgen sensitivity syndrome, but not if their difference between gene-typicality and gender occurs in the brain (inless the arbitrary essentialism is based on genes, but then there are other difficulties). Your ilk has decided the shape of the society they wish to impose on others, for the purposes of your own ease of classification, and decided to impose their control on whether and how people express their gender. You're the one demanding sheep here, by following of relatively rigid gender roles; I'm the one advocating for freedom and keeping society off of people's backs, in this case.

It is probably a fact that our "Live better with chemistry" world has "messed up" millions if not billions of human beings with chemicals released into lakes, rivers and oceans that have effects similar to our hormones. It is also almost certainly a fact that these sorts of chemicals in our plastic, and plastic-coated, food packages have exerted their effects on our development and health. I see nothing wrong with prosecuting the industries which have done this, and setting up a fund to help people whose development has been so impacted. The glass industry might even lobby for such legislation. . ., and perhaps there would be a turn towards bottles with the plastic layer sandwiched between glass surfaces, like our windshields.

There are indeed also the various natural disruptions of the normal development, such as the cases you mentioned.

I don't have a problem about being compassionate towards people with problems.

I do think they should get help, somehow, and many "Christians" would sign on with such charitable and compassionate efforts.

It's an entirely different thing to replace "normal" societal values with newly-imagined ones, and force people who are happy with the way they are to endure abuse by governmental mandates stipulating, for example, that whoever who for whatever reason imagines they might be another sex than what their physiology naturally appears to be MUST be treated correspondingly by everyone else.

A girl going into a bathroom to change a soiled article of personal hygeine should not be forced by government edict to endure a string of leering boys, pretending to be "gay" to parade past the stall, peeking through the cracks. . . .

People have a natural right to privacy, and public facilities should provide that privacy for people who need it.

So, why do you resort to hate speech so easily when you have no valid point to defend????

 

[green]

Are you telling me that the bishop doesn't know that you haven't paid tithing until the end of the year. COme on colton, really? Yes pretty much any time you are called to "serve" tithing is mentioned. Heck, when my father was in disfellowship status he could still pay tithing. Now I don't know if this is still the case it certainly happened in the early 70s. So as you are questioning validity of his story you do leave room of the possibility that it might be true. I don't know whether it is true or not but my experiences with the church are. It has also been my experience that many members choose to discount things that don't already support what they believe is true. That's fine if it makes you sleep better at night.

The Bishop never knows if you are a full tithe payer or not. I show $0 on my settlement form every December. I tell the Bishop I am a full tithe payer. My tithing is paid directly to the church. It's none of their business how much I make. So, no, unless you tell the Bishop specifics of your situation, he has no idea if you are a full tithe payer or not.

 

[green]

The last I heard, Bishops had been instructed to not let any person in their ward (member or not) go without. That being said, every Bishop is in charge of his own ward and how he distributes the help. I personally think it's ridiculous to require someone to catch up on tithing as a pre-requisite to receive aid. If they could afford tithing, they could afford the other things. As far as the selling of the cars, that I can believe. Any source of income is "expected" to be met before the Church grants money. If a car can be sold, maybe it should. I don't know if I would go that far as a Bishop (thankfully, I highly doubt the Lord wants me to be a Bishop). Bishops have been instructed to have people ask for help from any form possible before giving money. That includes extended family and the government. After my second kid was born, we literally went like 4 months averaging about 4 hours of restless sleep per day. Somewhere in the haze, I mistakenly wrote a tithing check for the entire amount of my paycheck. Suddenly, we couldn't afford to pay our bills. Work had been really slow and we weren't getting a consistent paycheck. We went to the Bishop and explained the situation and asked for some assistance in the amount of the "overpayment". That son of a bitch had the nerve to tell me that once money has been paid to the Church it belongs to the Church. I already knew this and told him that I didn't want the ward to cut me a check, I wanted to ward to help pay my bills for like a month. His response was that I should talk to my parents. I work for my dad and he wasn't getting paid either. He still refused to do it. Right then and there I vowed to NEVER pay a fast offering while he was my Bishop again. I told him that to his face as well.
Like has been mentioned, the Church has billions and it seems like every ward has a few people who are living off the Church as a career. I think they could and should do better for their members who rarely need it and come upon some hard times.

I will say this:

There are A LOT of Bishops out there who fully, honestly and sincerely think they are future Apostle's in training and it is their God given duty to save us all. They are terrible Bishops who usually get released at the end of their "term" and are never given other leadership callings again.

Here is my advice to everyone, whether your Bishop is a sweet angel or a conniving snake, trying to advance up the leadership ladder:

Tithing is between you and God. It is 10% of your increase (only you and God know what your increase is). Pay what you believe is 10% of your increase. If you do that, and your Bishop asks you any questions other than, "Are you a full-tithe payer?", respond with this sentence:

Bishop: "You said you are a full tithe-payer, yet your settlement statement says that you didn't pay any tithing this year. How can that be/how much did you make/this doesn't add up?"

Me/you:"Bishop, if you are asking me if I am a full tithe payer, the answer is yes."

That is all you have to say. Any other question he asks is none of his damn business.

When it comes to money, most people are morons. I don't need to discuss my money issues with morons. And most Bishops, who bring home their $45,000 per year, and move the decimal point to the left, have no clue how real money works. And I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach them.

Don't tell anyone how much you make. Don't tell anyone about any inheritance you receive. Go before God, figure out what 10% of your increase is, pay it, then move on. It's nobody else's business.

 

[babe]

I will say this:

There are A LOT of Bishops out there who fully, honestly and sincerely think they are future Apostle's in training and it is their God given duty to save us all. They are terrible Bishops who usually get released at the end of their "term" and are never given other leadership callings again.

Here is my advice to everyone, whether your Bishop is a sweet angel or a conniving snake, trying to advance up the leadership ladder:

Tithing is between you and God. It is 10% of your increase (only you and God know what your increase is). Pay what you believe is 10% of your increase. If you do that, and your Bishop asks you any questions other than, "Are you a full-tithe payer?", respond with this sentence:

Bishop: "You said you are a full tithe-payer, yet your settlement statement says that you didn't pay any tithing this year. How can that be/how much did you make/this doesn't add up?"

Me/you:"Bishop, if you are asking me if I am a full tithe payer, the answer is yes."

That is all you have to say. Any other question he asks is none of his damn business.

When it comes to money, most people are morons. I don't need to discuss my money issues with morons. And most Bishops, who bring home their $45,000 per year, and move the decimal point to the left, have no clue how real money works. And I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach them.

Don't tell anyone how much you make. Don't tell anyone about any inheritance you receive. Go before God, figure out what 10% of your increase is, pay it, then move on. It's nobody else's business.

Jesus, on the other hand, made a positive example of the widow giving her last mite. . . . .

 

[colton]

The Bishop never knows if you are a full tithe payer or not. I show $0 on my settlement form every December. I tell the Bishop I am a full tithe payer. My tithing is paid directly to the church. It's none of their business how much I make. So, no, unless you tell the Bishop specifics of your situation, he has no idea if you are a full tithe payer or not.

True. I hadn't thought about this, but the time I mentioned earlier, where I paid no tithing until the end of the year was the same sort of thing for me--I paid tithing directly to the church via a stock donation, so the local ward receipts would have shown $0 even after that donation.

 

[colton]

Tithing is between you and God. It is 10% of your increase (only you and God know what your increase is). Pay what you believe is 10% of your increase. If you do that, and your Bishop asks you any questions other than, "Are you a full-tithe payer?", respond with this sentence:

Bishop: "You said you are a full tithe-payer, yet your settlement statement says that you didn't pay any tithing this year. How can that be/how much did you make/this doesn't add up?"

Me/you:"Bishop, if you are asking me if I am a full tithe payer, the answer is yes."

That is all you have to say. Any other question he asks is none of his damn business.

In fact, I believe bishops are specifically told NOT to ask any other questions than that. I distinctly remember reading something like that in the church handbook when I was in a branch presidency.

 

[bordelais7]

I've been associated with 15-20 bishops in my lifetime. Can someone calculate the odds (they must be incredible) that I've somehow been lucky enough to have had the only bishops in the church who have copies of welfare instruction manuals and actual have read them?

And yes, bishops are instructed (and it's in Handbook 1) to only ask "Are you a full tithe payer?", yes-no question with no follow up. Same for temple recommend interviews. I've never experienced anything contrary to that instruction. Probably because of my intense charm.

Here is some of the more public information which explains a bit about the welfare philosophy:

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbo...ch/welfare-principles-and-leadership?lang=eng

Most wards have a welfare specialist who is kind of a finance counselor/needs assessor liaison. It's unfortunate that sometimes the "help" comes across as interrogation or intrusive or insulting, but really the goal IS to provide short-term help in the form of resources/supplies, and long-term help in the form of training, job search assistance, etc.

I also suspect that there has been a gradual tightening of distribution of funds as word has gotten out over the years that the church gives out money if you just ask the bishop nicely. A LOT of abuse, and while the church has a lot of resources, they're not infinite, and the distribution trends were unsustainable. Which has forced the church to be a little more judicious in determining qualification, which requires some of that intrusive analysis, which hurts feelings and implies a lack of trust. And bishops who might feel compelled to prove to themselves that they are being wise by denying a claim here or there.

To answer one question, recently (5 years ago?) there were some guidelines implemented about paying for large recurring payments (such as mortgages) which require bishops to seek stake approval for more than a couple consecutive payments.

My experience having served on several ward councils is that 80% of our time is spent discussing needs of members and how we can best serve them with our limited resources. It's always a humbling and spiritual experience for me, and I can only hope that it's received as such as well. It can feel embarrassing to even ask for help, or to receive it, but we're all in this together, right?

 

[bordelais7]

But, of course, the real question is "Gross or Net"?

Wait, what was this thread about again?

 

[One Brow]

It is probably a fact that our "Live better with chemistry" world has "messed up" millions if not billions of human beings with chemicals released into lakes, rivers and oceans that have effects similar to our hormones.

If this distortion comforts you, I can't change that. However, many cultures have/had centuries-old traditions of gender fluidity. We didn't know about androgen insensitivity until we could test for it, but there have been XY women for as long as there have been humans.

At any rate, this is beside the point. Your nostalgic gender utopia is not reason to oppress people in the here and now.

I do think they should get help, somehow, and many "Christians" would sign on with such charitable and compassionate efforts.

The only help many of them want is the freedom to express themselves as they see fit, free of the strictures you try to impose on them. Will you grant them help of that sort, abandon gender essentialism, and encourage others to do the same?

It's an entirely different thing to replace "normal" societal values with newly-imagined ones, and force people who are happy with the way they are to endure abuse by governmental mandates stipulating, for example, that whoever who for whatever reason imagines they might be another sex than what their physiology naturally appears to be MUST be treated correspondingly by everyone else.

As usual, you put your own ease of mind and comfort ahead of the simple politeness needed to treat other people as they wish to be treated, when doing so would cost you nothing except your desire to impose your vision upon them. Perhaps the reason you see progressives as eager to dominate, define, and constrict others is because this is your natural bent.

A girl going into a bathroom to change a soiled article of personal hygeine should not be forced by government edict to endure a string of leering boys, pretending to be "gay" to parade past the stall, peeking through the cracks. . . .

1) Gay men use the men's room. I've never heard of a gay man wanting to use the ladies room. You have confused "gay" with "transgender".
2) There has never been a case of a person faking being transgender just to use a specific restroom. If you think at all about how transgender people get treated by society, you will understand why.
3) Do you cover up the cracks in stall when you use a public restroom, in case of some wandering gay man? That's a crazy-level-paranoid view of the world.

What are you so afraid of?

So, why do you resort to hate speech so easily when you have no valid point to defend????

Do you think telling someone about how they want to dominate the world with their policies is hate speech generally, or only when it is applied to you?

 

[Stoked]

If this distortion comforts you, I can't change that. However, many cultures have/had centuries-old traditions of gender fluidity. We didn't know about androgen insensitivity until we could test for it, but there have been XY women for as long as there have been humans.

At any rate, this is beside the point. Your nostalgic gender utopia is not reason to oppress people in the here and now.



The only help many of them want is the freedom to express themselves as they see fit, free of the strictures you try to impose on them. Will you grant them help of that sort, abandon gender essentialism, and encourage others to do the same?



As usual, you put your own ease of mind and comfort ahead of the simple politeness needed to treat other people as they wish to be treated, when doing so would cost you nothing except your desire to impose your vision upon them. Perhaps the reason you see progressives as eager to dominate, define, and constrict others is because this is your natural bent.



1) Gay men use the men's room. I've never heard of a gay man wanting to use the ladies room. You have confused "gay" with "transgender".
2) There has never been a case of a person faking being transgender just to use a specific restroom. If you think at all about how transgender people get treated by society, you will understand why.
3) Do you cover up the cracks in stall when you use a public restroom, in case of some wandering gay man? That's a crazy-level-paranoid view of the world.

What are you so afraid of?



Do you think telling someone about how they want to dominate the world with their policies is hate speech generally, or only when it is applied to you?

Just pointing out that your side can have this very argument used against them. Both sides are fighting to remake the society as they see fit. The other sides peace of mind and comfort be damned.

 

[One Brow]

Just pointing out that your side can have this very argument used against them. Both sides are fighting to remake the society as they see fit. The other sides peace of mind and comfort be damned.

Your bolded expressions:
"the freedom to express themselves as they see fit, free of the strictures you try to impose on them"
"you put your own ease of mind and comfort ahead of the simple politeness needed to treat other people as they wish to be treated"
"how they want to dominate the world"

Going back to the my post in this particular sub-thread:
'While noting that there are differences between the "typical" or "average" man and their female counterpart, applying these differences as applying to all men/women is gender essentialism at its worst, and places both men and women into boxes, many of which are more confining than defining. Personally, I've always looked good in pink.'

Can you describe why noting the falseness of gender essentialism, and the immorality of trying to impose it, denies you the freedom to express yourself? How this discussion is impolite to you? How it attempts to dominate anyone?

Let's go a step further, and posit that gender fluidity becomes something that's socially acceptable, and considered as neutrally as having a vasectomy/tubal ligation. How would this deny you the freedom to express yourself? How would this be impolite to you? How would it dominate anyone?

 

[green]

But, of course, the real question is "Gross or Net"?

Wait, what was this thread about again?

For you, it might be net. For someone else, it might be gross. Go ask God and do what you feel is right. Only you know if you are cheating God.

 

[Stoked]

Your bolded expressions:
"the freedom to express themselves as they see fit, free of the strictures you try to impose on them"
"you put your own ease of mind and comfort ahead of the simple politeness needed to treat other people as they wish to be treated"
"how they want to dominate the world"

Going back to the my post in this particular sub-thread:
'While noting that there are differences between the "typical" or "average" man and their female counterpart, applying these differences as applying to all men/women is gender essentialism at its worst, and places both men and women into boxes, many of which are more confining than defining. Personally, I've always looked good in pink.'

Can you describe why noting the falseness of gender essentialism, and the immorality of trying to impose it, denies you the freedom to express yourself? How this discussion is impolite to you? How it attempts to dominate anyone?

Let's go a step further, and posit that gender fluidity becomes something that's socially acceptable, and considered as neutrally as having a vasectomy/tubal ligation. How would this deny you the freedom to express yourself? How would this be impolite to you? How would it dominate anyone?

I was referrign mostly to this part of the argument. Not the sexual orientation side of it. My post was on a broader scale. Isn't forcing anyone to live by a set of laws, morals, values...that they do not agree with a form of domination and hurtful to ones feelings?

Banning gay marriage, banning gun , banning weed, imigration control...the argument can be applied to them all. It is forcing others to live by a set of values that are not their own.

 

[PearlWatson]

My experience having served on several ward councils is that 80% of our time is spent discussing needs of members and how we can best serve them with our limited resources. It's always a humbling and spiritual experience for me, and I can only hope that it's received as such as well. It can feel embarrassing to even ask for help, or to receive it, but we're all in this together, right?

A big male gossip session?

 

[One Brow]

I was referrign mostly to this part of the argument. Not the sexual orientation side of it. My post was on a broader scale. Isn't forcing anyone to live by a set of laws, morals, values...that they do not agree with a form of domination and hurtful to ones feelings?

Banning gay marriage, banning gun , banning weed, imigration control...the argument can be applied to them all. It is forcing others to live by a set of values that are not their own.

I agree completely. I apologize for misunderstanding your point.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

A big male gossip session?

If you don;t mind me asking, are you LDS? From what I've heard you're a woman IRL.

What's your take on this issue? I have heard what a whole bunch of Mormon dudes think. What about you?