I work with a group of people who feeds kids during the summer when school is out. This year almost 450 kids applied for lunch meals. I approached all of the local service organizations, and churches and asked for help: money, food, pre-made lunches, volunteers...

The response was great - except for the LDS church.
I was told by the bishop to send any of their child members who are hungry to him.
You do NOT to feed them; we will feed our own!

Give me a break! Like I am going to ask every kid what religion they are!!! We don’t care what religion they are. We just care that they are hungry.
The LDS are so selfish, petty, stingy - they make me ill. They have an abundance of money, but don’t use it for people who need it.

The bish sounds like a sanctimonious prick.

Birth control has been free and available for 40 years in this country at every public health clinic. Why do people have children if they can’t afford to feed them?

I applaud your efforts but people need to be responsible for their kids.

When a child is hungry, it’s everyone’s problem.

Couldn't agree more.

Birth control would prevent most childhood hunger and most abortions.

We need less hungry kids, and less aborted babies. Just do the simple thing and prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

Prevention is better than cure.

I agree with what you have said here. However, there are plenty of people out there who had children when they could afford them. And, then, the shit hit the fan. Many times, through no fault of their own except not being omniscient. That is why we need to have safety nets.

Yep, agree with that too.

To put an ex-mormon bow on it, the government should be able to help us out, "after all we can do."

We certainly shouldn't incentivize people not to work or make good choices. But when they make good choices and fall on hard times, there should be a net that helps them get back on their feet.

I don’t care if the parents ARE lazy and irresponsible—feed children. Hungry children—never okay.

Simple, isn't it.

...each child in need will be given a unique voucher to use at the Bishops storehouse. There, the hungry children will rejoice at the amount and selection of canned-food goodness! Select carefully, as to not waste your pre-determined limit on the select items; such as the Deseret tuna...loaded with all the trace elements you need!...by special arrangement with TEP and the Fukishima power plant! Each child will be given a complimentary dosimeter to monitor the active nutrient levels.

Dorothy nli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don’t care if the parents ARE lazy and
> irresponsible—feed children. Hungry
> children—never okay.


I don't get how any sane person could refuse to feed any hungry child. I try to be open-minded where others' beliefs/philosophies are concerned, but not where children's most basic needs are concerned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2019 02:38AM by scmd1.

Alaska’s oil fund dividend that every resident gets has been found to have no impact on employment. Handouts don’t encourage people to not work. They only reduce the problems that arise from extreme income inequality. Our society has a million excuses for children to be third class citizens, but we’ll pay on the front end or the back end. Front end is much cheaper.

So you've never heard of people who already had children, and who were taking fine care of them, running into financial problems, falling into poverty? You must live in a very special world.

Sounds like a strawman.

Formerly on WIC when mine were young and I was out of work. I second your emotion.

Poor people want to have children to love as much as anyone else. In my experience working in urban schools, the poor tend to limit their family size. They also for the most part work very hard at jobs that you interact with every day. They often work at two or three jobs. They do useful things like make your pizza, or take in your laundry, or take your payment at the convenience store or gas station. Our economy would come to a grinding halt without them. Your life would be immeasurably harder without them. But because they are economically fragile, they do need help.

It has been proven that children cannot learn without a full stomach. That is why schools have free and reduced price meals. I've learned over the years that when a child complains of a stomachache, the first question that I ask is, "Did you eat breakfast this morning?' Even kids from prosperous families sometimes have parents that flake out on breakfast. Most teachers keep crackers or cereal around for just such occasions.

Of all of the ways that our country spends money, this is one of the best things that we do. We reduce hunger. We feed hungry children and hungry people.

The food bank that I saw in action got most of their supplies from supermarkets (slightly out of date food,) and manufacturers (overstock and out-of-date.) This is not to say that individual contributions from community members are not welcome -- those contributions add needed variety. But most of the donations from supermarkets and manufacturers would be thrown away anyway. Isn't it better to get the excess food to those who need it most?

This is all good stuff.

I would add that if one wants to reduce the number of children born in poverty, the answer is to enhance education and social services. If you do that, the fertility rate decreases and ultimately the burden on society diminishes.

That is as close to an iron rule in developmental economics as one can get.

I think the bishop was just trying to justify giving no support. I think he followed the TSCC guidelines on this issue. I hope the little bish is enjoying his powertrip... cause that is the only thing he is going to get for all the time and effort he's put in.
What a waste!

See, if YOU feed the kids, then HE loses control over them. He won't be able to set the conditions for the help or determine how "worthy" they might be. And most of all, it will decrease their dependence on the church, and maybe get them used to not having to beg and grovel for each morsel or favor.

Please tell us that someone told A-hole Bishop to go pound sand.

Yes, send any hungry Mormon kids to the bishop with their tithing envelopes in hand and he'll make sure they're fed. And after, the kids can clean toilets and vacuum carpets to pay back the favor.

You NEVER know what circumstances you will find yourselves in. I had a great job when I got married. Earned enough that the bishop told me to never tell the guys in the ward how much I earned or they would be intimidated.

I left that job to have twins with my ex. He left us. No child support. No alimony. Had to argue with him for every penny he gave his children.

I came close to losing everything I had and I did get help from the lds church, but I was the only single mother I knew who did. Every other one I sent to their bishops didn't get any help. The bishop told me to keep taking food so I wouldn't get behind on my bills again. It was great food no matter what other things are said, but the church is very stingy when it comes to their help, VERY, VERY STINGY.

I think I got help because the bishop knew my "ex" well and liked him. They were all shocked by what happened. I don't think any of them have recovered to this day.

in medical transcription, but I was also trying to keep the house we purchased TOGETHER and he wouldn't let me sell, etc., etc., etc.

You NEVER know where life will take you. Hell, I just lost my long-time FOREVER job last October and I lost 67% of my income and I'll be 62 in 3 months. You just NEVER know. Now the ex is paying the house payment . . .

The problem is, Mormons do NOT feed their own.
At least not sufficiently, considering the tithes they collect.

Mormon income goes toward worldly investments and purchases instead and the members are not allowed to share in the bounty as stock holders.

That's how cults operate.They exploit their members.

Thank you for not turning away any child based on religion.

Rest assured the Mormon church has no interest in feeding its members.

On the fair side. The bishop more than likely does not have permission to release funds for your project. All money is controlled through Salt Lake. Bishops have limited funds and limited autonomy.

Think of it as asking a manager of an Apple store to support your project. About all he could do is take up a collection and forward your request to corporate.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rest assured the Mormon church has no interest in
> feeding its members.


The purpose of the members is to feed the church.

It's a tough one. I was listening to a podcast this morning about a book called the "high cost of good intentions." I learned today that 55% of the country is currently getting some sort of welfare. We increase spending for the poor when times (economy) is bad and when times are good. And every time more entitlements go out more people are ready standing in line trying to qualify.

Giving away free food is like teaching kids to expect free stuff later in life. It's bad. I would rather see them give away free chores around town. Or public works projects for kids. I'm sure there are some ditches to be dug?

I work with poor children and poor families every day. As I stated above, most poor families are hard workers. They often work two or even three jobs to make ends meet. Their children have a good example of hard work right at home.

As for employment, most urban teens would love to have a summer job. The local economy often doesn't cooperate. I've seen kids as young as 4th and 5th grade start their own small businesses to bring in some pocket money.

55% is way too low an estimate for how many Americans get entitlements. The key is of course the definition. Everyone tends to define his own subsidies from the government as legitimate, and everyone else's as "entitlements" that somehow represent illegitimate and unearned "gifts" from the state.

What is an "entitlement?" It is a transfer from the state that violates the rules of economic efficiency.

What are the biggest entitlements? Middle-class benefits like the mortgage income deduction (a transfer from renters to homeowners); social security in excess of what was paid (a transfer from future generations to present ones); and Medicare (the same inter-generational dynamic). Those are by far the largest entitlements.

A bit further down the list come the upper class's entitlements. The carried interest exemption, the ability to hide income in special-purpose corporations, and anything else that lowers the tax burden paid by the rich to a level below that paid by the middle class and the poor. When Mitt Romney's tax rate is 11.5% in some years and Trump pays zero due to creative accounting, something is wrong.

Romney said 47% of the country is feeding at the public trough was politically obtuse; it was also factually absurd. The real number is much closer to 100%, and the rich are second only to the middle class in terms of volume of government subsidies. There is no solution to the national debt and the unfunded liabilities until people learn where the biggest entitlements lie.

And it isn't with the poor.

macaRomney Wrote:

>
> Giving away free food is like teaching kids to
> expect free stuff later in life. It's bad. I would
> rather see them give away free chores around town.
> Or public works projects for kids. I'm sure there
> are some ditches to be dug?

Kids should have a right to eat regardless of their parents' circumstances. My children take their food for granted. I wish all children could. At some point kids do need to learn that a living comes from the work one does, but they don't need to learn the cold and hard factuality of it all by being made to go hungry because of their parents' misfortune or even laziness if such applies in their cases. I wish there were a better system for ensuring that any aid designed to help children didn't go toward supporting a parent's drug habit, and I'm 100% in favor of any safeguards devised to prevent such happenings, but meanwhile, children really need to be fed.

"Ditches to be dug" by children?

Poster seems to long for the good old days of the 19th century.
Why don't we just put all children over the age of six to work 10 hours a day in a sweatshop. Teach 'em the value of a good hard day's work!

Poster needs to reread his Dickens.

Nah, it’ll never happen. He doesn’t even know what he proposes has been illegal in the US for over 80 years.

If the working poor work harder, maybe they’ll get more money. If they’re very lucky. You can’t ask people to do more than they can do. Flat wages in the face of rising prices are caused by capitalism. Labor has been gutted, so Capital socializes its costs. It’s their job. You and I pay, they smile all the way to the bank. Public anger against a dysfunctional system is deflected with scapegoats. Blame the poor, immigrants, Russian bots, etc.

All of this is very desensitizing. The most vulnerable in our society suffer because of it. It’s very bad. It’s cult thinking. Not any less dysfunctional than Mormonism. A select group pushes a fantasy for completely selfish reasons. Sound familiar?

Don't blame it on capitalism. There are as many sorts of capitalism as there are sorts of socialism.

The capitalism that made the country great was one that included support for the poor. That was an exceptional development, one of the 20th century. The capitalism towards which the country is marching has much less support for the poor and middle class, and hence the size of the middle class is shrinking. That matters because the middle class is essential to a functional democracy and ultimately to capitalism itself. As a ruling class emerges, with the laws skewed in its favor, the constitutional republic transforms into an oligopoly and an oligarchy.

We may be headed in that direction but it is neither the nature of capitalism nor an inevitability. Not yet.

I have always wondered where the "we take care of our own" (and everyone else is pretty much out of luck) attitude comes from. Especially for a church that claims to "follow Jesus".

Am not particularly religious anymore, but in the Bible you only have to go as far as the parable of the Good Samaritan to find that Jesus taught the exact opposite. According to the Bible (or at least in one account), "Who is my neighbor?" is the question that prompted Jesus to tell this parable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2019 06:26PM by Gold&Green.

When I was TBM a local non-LDS church had a kitchen and prepared meals for the homeless every week. They asked local churches of all denominations to help. The student ward I belonged to volunteered to work in the kitchen once a month. We were responsible for supplying and cooking the food. I helped out just about every month. The relief society president, who came from a VERY wealthy family, was responsible for rounding up the food. She would mostly go to cafeterias on the University campus to ask for left over food. The food she managed to scrounge (not purchase) was almost inedible. I was embarrassed to serve the food we prepared because it was discarded re-cooked garbage. Even the homeless people complained about it. I don't know why we couldn't have purchased a turkey and potatoes and served a quality meal instead of the second-hand slop we served. I purchased apples with my own money to hand out. Church-co was too stingy.

If the bishop needed to get permission from the big boys in SLC to release fast offering funds or anything else, he should have taken OP's or OP's associate's number and should have gotten back to them with whatever donation could be spared. That was truly a lame response on the part of the bishop. Had I been in his position, at the very least I would have taken what I could spare out of my wallet and would have made a personal donation.

Hungry children are everyone's problem regardless of how they came to be hungry. I am capable of being a bit conservative when it comes either to what the powers that be propose to do with my tax dollars or to charitable organizations and donations, but hungry children have to be fed one way or another.

This is fascinating case study of human reaction, thanks for posting this!

It's a difference in perspective that the mormon bishop has. On the one camp you have people who want to quickly solve a small discomfort now while evading the long term outcomes. And on the other side there is the group of people who want to conserve what exists for the future. But from the OP account, the do-gooders certainly have more people in their camp, and they would profess to be morally superior.

Let me put it to you in terms that you can understand. If a kid comes to school hungry, that child cannot learn. This has been proven be research and also squares with my own observations. All a hungry kid can think about is their aching stomach. Regardless of where YOU wish to assign blame, this is in no way the child's fault.

If you deny hungry kids food, you are handicapping those children through no fault of their own. Give a kid breakfast and lunch, and you are giving that child a fighting chance for a better life. Teachers can then teach the child how to read, write, and do math. We can then talk to the child about how to make good choices and how to build a good future for himself or herself.

I have some very smart and hard working children in my class. I have many kids with good character. They already face a lot of obstacles in terms of getting an education. There is no reason to make it any tougher on them. It's in everyone's best interest to give these kids a good education and to get them on their feet. It's not just humane, it's practical.

First I'm reminded of my grandmother widowed at age 26. Sketchy on the details and Mom's gone so I can't ask. But when the New Deal came along to help during the depression, the church turned down some federal funds saying "we take care of our own". Except my grandmother wasn't Mormon so she wasn't eligible to be taken care of as one of their own. And when she tried to get a job that was typically a man's job, the lovely Relief Society ladies righteously stated "a woman's place is in the home"! (You got me started!)

2nd. How often did you hear leadership say such drivel as, "Don't wait to have children!" "God will provide!" "Your responsibility is to bring down those little baby spirits whether or not you can feed them."

Grrrrrr. This post made me furious.