Letter to the Faithful - First Presidency Letter on SSM

[DrumNFeather]

I've decided to start a new thread for this discussion, since it deals specifically with what the church intends to do moving forward on Sundays as it pertains to the supreme court ruling.

Here's the article from PFS: http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...ding-letter-to

And here's the specifics from the Mormon newsroom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...riage-decision

Obviously the opinions on this will be far reaching, and, as is typical, this will be a "where you sit is where you stand" kind of issue. That said, I'm interested to see how this approach works at a local level.

The letter is intended to be used as a discussion point in Sunday School or 3rd hour for all adults and youth. I've read some cynical responses as to why the youth are being included in the discussion, but hey, the youth haven't been included before, and most of the Progmos have called for better exposure to big issues for the youth, so there you have it.

It should make for an interesting Sunday over the next few weeks, that's for sure. No doubt there will be some hand wringing as well.

I'm in primary, so I doubt I'll get a chance to be a part of it, so I'll be curious to hear what your experiences are.

[DrumNFeather]

Here's someone who has openly decided to post why he won't be attending during these discussions: https://medium.com/@ungewissen/missi...y-928e90931ee1

And another perspective: http://www.feministmormonhousewives....6/dear-bishop/

[LA Ute]

I'll be in Newport Beach this Sunday. It'll be interesting to see how this is discussed there.

[DrumNFeather]

I'll be in Newport Beach this Sunday. It'll be interesting to see how this is discussed there.

Let me ask you this, if you were leading the discussion in your ward, how would you do it? What would your approach be?

[UtahsMrSports]

Here's someone who has openly decided to post why he won't be attending during these discussions: https://medium.com/@ungewissen/missi...y-928e90931ee1

And another perspective: http://www.feministmormonhousewives....6/dear-bishop/

I hadnt put two and two together that it was fast sunday..........oh boy. Fast sunday in july can sometimes bring out the political rant testimonies. This should only add to it. I just hope that church leaders are prayerful and thoughtful with this. A discussion like this can do a lot of good.

As a side note, this made me think of testimony meeting as a missionary. I remember working my tail off to get people to church and then I would be sweating profusely the whole time worrying that somebody or somebodies would turn testimony meeting into a train wreck. Now, I more or less just pop some popcorn and enjoy!

[LA Ute]

Let me ask you this, if you were leading the discussion in your ward, how would you do it? What would your approach be?

Well, I'm out of the bishopric now so I won't get that assignment! If I were, I'd advise the bishop to read the letter, as instructed, then lead a discussion. He knows the stories of people in the ward and can tailor his approach to be sensitive to their concerns and feelings. Our ward is very diverse, ethnically and culturally, so I wish I could be there Sunday. Our current bishop is a fascinating guy - Puerto Rican, grew up in Mew York City; probably a Democrat; his daughter was our beloved seminary teacher for several years and is an outspoken Democrat who celebrated the SCOTUS decision last Friday. I think he'll stick to the FP/Q12 doctrinal guidance and will emphasize love and kindness and patience. If I were his counselor and he asked me for advice, that's what I'd say he should do.

EDIT: I agree with sancho. I'd do the youth separately.

[wally]

Frankly, I am tired of this discussion. I have read the official statement and it does not clarify anything, it does not inspire me, it does not enlighten me. It just seems like, a statement because, well, they couldn't just say nothing at church the next week, could they?

My biggest hope for what can come out of this whole thing, is for the church leadership and bureaucracy to have developed a general distaste for political endeavors beyond the Utah bubble, and by hell I do love my Utah bubble! Sometimes I wonder if prop 8 was Elder Oaks' Martin Harris moment? Oh well, glad my only job in this is to make sure I show up to clean the ward building and make sure that the teenage boys don't get into trouble on Wednesdays between 7-9 pm.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Statistically speaking, in every congregation where these discussions will be taking place, there will be at least one person among them that at least struggles with their sexual identity. I would hope that knowing such things would help retain the conversation in civility and understanding.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Frankly, I am tired of this discussion. I have read the official statement and it does not clarify anything, it does not inspire me, it does not enlighten me. It just seems like, a statement because, well, they couldn't just say nothing at church the next week, could they?

My biggest hope for what can come out of this whole thing, is for the church leadership and bureaucracy to have developed a general distaste for political endeavors beyond the Utah bubble, and by hell I do love my Utah bubble! Sometimes I wonder if prop 8 was Elder Oaks' Martin Harris moment? Oh well, glad my only job in this is to make sure I show up to clean the ward building and make sure that the teenage boys don't get into trouble on Wednesdays between 7-9 pm.

Maybe because I'm cynical, but it seems like this official statement isn't so much a response to the SCOTUS ruling as much as a response to the debate regarding Elder Christofferson's comments about supporting such rulings on social media. The official statement seemed to have a much stronger tone than with less wiggle room.

[LA Ute]

Statistically speaking, in every congregation where these discussions will be taking place, there will be at least one person among them that at least struggles with their sexual identity. I would hope that knowing such things would help retain the conversation in civility and understanding.

Reading posts like this (and yours is not the only one) I wonder what other wards are like. Judging from the level of dread I see many people expressing about what to expect, it sounds like there are some really foolish statements being made by people who should know better. I'm sorry people have to deal with that. I'm not bragging about my ward and stake, just feeling fortunate to be in it. The ward we attend when we are in Salt Lake (on the eastern end of the Avenues) is a lot like my home ward, but probably very different from wards in the suburbs of the Wasatch Front, Phoenix and Las Vegas. Our clannishness as a people doesn't serve us well in areas where our members are highly concentrated.

[#1 Utefan]

I'm tired of this entire issue and discussion. With all the problems in this country and the world, it seems it is time to move on. I don't expect the LDS church to ever marry gay people in temples or chapels so I'm not sure why it was necessary to issue a statement. Since they did, I am even more surprised why any member of the church or non-LDS person would be surprised or offended by it. The LDS and other churches aren't going to change their stances on this issue because of a 5-4 Supreme Court vote along party lines.

I have no doubt the next step is for those deeply invested in this debate is to attempt to take away tax exempt status from churches refusing to conduct gay weddings in their places of worship. I think that writing is on the wall. The only question is how many of these churches will cave and which ones will stick to their guns? Time will tell but I don't think the LDS church stance on this issue will change in my lifetime if ever. If this bothers or comes as a surprise to any church members, it shouldn't.

Personally, as I stated before, this discussion and national debate has become exhausting. I'd just assume move on and discuss real issues. Utah sports anyone?

[wally]

Maybe because I'm cynical, but it seems like this official statement isn't so much a response to the SCOTUS ruling as much as a response to the debate regarding Elder Christofferson's comments about supporting such rulings on social media. The official statement seemed to have a much stronger tone than with less wiggle room.

I do not read any lds blogs or discussion sites, and a brief google search left me without any clearer understanding of the "debate regarding Elder Christofferson's comments about supporting such rulings on social media", so I am going to assume that it is in response to the SCOTUS ruling that has dominated all major news outlets. I am still interested in what Christofferson said though, just can't find it.

[LA Ute]

I do not read any lds blogs or discussion sites, and a brief google search left me without any clearer understanding of the "debate regarding Elder Christofferson's comments about supporting such rulings on social media", so I am going to assume that it is in response to the SCOTUS ruling that has dominated all major news outlets. I am still interested in what Christofferson said though, just can't find it.

Here is the interview in question:



EDIT:

Some key portions, for purposes of the present discussion:

Daniel Woodruff:
“Members of the LDS Church have been watching this too, around the the country, and it brings up the question as they’re dealing with these issues, maybe within their families, they’re trying to understand how maybe religious freedom applies to them within the church. Obviously the church has its doctrine, but can members of the church, say, support gay marriage, or other things that are related to this bill, that the Church teaches against? Can they support that?”


Elder Christofferson:
“Well there is a diversity of opinion among church members in that regard. And you know that’s always been true, I guess, on many subjects over the years, over the decades, and we don’t have qualms about that. I mean people, we urge people to take part, for example, in the political process and we don’t tell them how to vote or who to vote for, but that they exercise their own good judgment and and make their decisions. Obviously that’s different than when somebody attacks the church you know, per se, or tries to hinder its work. But anybody pursuing their view of what ought to happen in the community– that’s what we hope to see frankly. And in a way you saw it here in the legislature. The vast majority of legislators in Utah are members the LDS Church, and you see a wide variety of opinions in them and among them as you do in our, at the federal level in the US and in other countries. So we, if we’re trying to get everybody to sing the same song and say exactly the same thing we’re failing miserably.”


[…]

Daniel Woodruff:
“I know that in one of the temple recommend interview questions it asks, “do you agree with elements that are against the church?” and I guess, I mean, could it be interpreted that if people supported gay marriage that would be agreeing with something that was against the church?”


Elder Christofferson:
“Well, it’s not do you agree with a person’s position or an organization’s position, it is are you supporting, are you supporting organizations that promote opposition, or positions in opposition to the church.”


Daniel Woodruff:
“So would supporting gay marriage threaten somebody’s membership in the church? If they went out, say, on Facebook or Twitter and actively advocated for it?”

Elder Christofferson:
“No. That’s not an organized, you know, effort to attack our effort or attack our functioning as a church, if you will.”

Daniel Woodruff:
“So members can hold those beliefs even though they’re different from what you teach at the pulpit?”

Elder Christofferson:
“Yes and we, you know, our approach in all of this, as Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t, He said you can’t use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate– you can’t compel, you can’t coerce– it has to be gentleness, persuasion, love unfeigned, as the words are in the scripture.”
[…]


Daniel Woodruff:
“We’ve reported on your situation, you have a brother who is gay, and you’ve talked about how that has impacted your family. Has that, personally for you, has that family dynamic impacted at all how you’ve approached this issue– how you’ve approached publicly advocating, as an apostle, for SB296?”

Elder Christofferson:
“No. The the real genesis of, of the movement, if you will, behind these issues has been a matter of counseling together as we do in the church. We operate by councils: there’s the Quorum of the Twelve, which is a council, the First Presidency, is a council, and at the ward, the local levels, and the stake levels, we rely heavily on counseling together to determine which way to go and to, as a way of facilitating revelation and inspiration and receiving guidance that way. So it’s not one person says, you know, because of this experience that I’ve had in my life this is how we need to do it. But it’s this sharing of past experience, sharing of knowledge and background, but it’s after everything else a search for revelation– a search to know what the Lord’s will is and that’s what we try to follow.”

[…]

Daniel Woodruff:
“What would you say to those members who wonder, is it possible: would the church ever, one day, accept monogamous same-sex marriage or move further beyond the position that you’re currently at?”

Elder Christofferson:
“I don’t think so, because that’s such a fundamental aspect of what we see as the purpose of life. You know, we talk about the plan of salvation as we call it, and take into account the pre-mortal existence, this current existence, and what comes hereafter– marriage between a man and a woman, the family that grows out of that– all of that is so fundamental to what has happened, what needs to happen here, what comes hereafter, that without it falls apart. So I don’t think we can take away the cornerstone without everything else coming down.”

Daniel Woodruff:
“Now, you say you don’t think ..is there.. are leaving any room at all for…”

Elder Christofferson:
“No.”
[…]

[Just as the interview seems over and Elder Christofferson begins to stand up, a different voice from somewhere behind the camera and without a mic, interrupts to ask his own additional question.]

Unidentified Man:
“This has been a divisive issue, in all of society, but I think also within the church– that people are still trying to sort out exactly how they think and feel and how to act and they don’t like feeling like they’re in opposition to the church but they may in their heart feel like marriage equality is something that they have a personal conviction of. What would be your message to those individuals within the church, that are trying desperately to stay within the church, but feel like that because they’re so at odds with what is publicly stated that they no longer feel like they might fit– your message to them? You know the church has done a lot with the I’m a Mormon campaign to emphasize the diversity of the backgrounds and perspectives within the church, but on this issue specifically I think people sometimes feel like it’s in or out.”

Elder Christofferson:
“Well it’s, it’s not an easy thing, and I believe we recognize that. Our hope is that over time, as we stay together and worship together and search for inspiration together, that ways open up for people of all persuasions to come to feel but they’re comfortable here. While they don’t know the eventual outcome and what’s going to happen in the near term– I should say what’s going to happen in the near term, they know the end result can be happiness– a state of happiness, a state of fulfillment, something that God desires for all– and we firmly believe no one is predestined to a second class status and… have a… no one who is is faithful to the commandments and the principles that we teach even though that may involve some very significant sacrifice in the short term (even all of mortal life, if you can call that short term) it’s all worth it in the end because nothing is denied anyone who is faithful. We don’t see all how that comes together, but we have the faith that it does because we have a God who created us all, loves us all, and is gonna give everyone who tries and who is loyal to him everything that he has to give.”

[NorthwestUteFan]

I also would want to know at which point in the sand the line is drawn regarding discussing/supporting the issue. D. Todd Christopherson said that it is OK for a church member to support marriage equality, but the Instruction to Bishops section of the seems kind of vague as to what constitutes 'influencing others to (engage in homosexual behavior)', but states that the will be subject to church discipline.

Can a local leader define this to mean that marching in a pride parade equals influencing others to engage in homosexual behavior? How about supporting PFLAG? Advocating for lgbt rights on Facebook? Discussing this issue in church or with other members?

The Background Info for Bishops and Branch Presidents also effectively states that members who disagree with the church's position need to pray and read Scriptures until they fall into line. Failing that, they need to talk to the Bishop, who should subsequently send them to the SP.

Here is that Background Info part:

[Spoiler]


Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents
on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex Marriage

The Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise.

For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops [2010], 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world, but the physical and social toll for doing so is a painful matter of record.

So, too, with issues of unchaste sexual behavior, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation. As the First Presidency has previously said and as this current response affirms, “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society” (First Presidency letter on “Same‐Sex Marriage,” January 9, 2014).

What is the Church’s policy on homosexual relations?
“Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

“If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on “While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. “If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders
should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 21.4.6).

Does the authorization of same‐sex marriage affect my right to religious freedom?
Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we exercise that right, we must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God. “While we strive for the virtue of tolerance, other commendable qualities need not be lost. Tolerance does not require the
surrender of noble purpose or of individual identity. The Lord gave instruction to leaders of His restored Church to establish and maintain institutional integrity—‘that the Church may stand independent’ (D&C 78:14)” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Teach Us Tolerance and Love,” April 1994 general conference).

How do I respond respectfully to those who consider the Church’s position on this
matter unchristian?
Our objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable. “On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference).

What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject?
“Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities.

“If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president.

“. . . Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).



[/spoiler]

[NorthwestUteFan]

Also i have to call BS on the line, "For much of human history, civil laws have been in accordance with God's laws".

This writer would fail a 7th Grade History test if that is his belief.

[Rocker Ute]

For anyone dreading this discussion, you need to be there and you need to clear up any of the crazies. As far as I am concerned the pattern is very clearly established as to what you and I need to do as a member. Regardless of your feelings about the issue, whether it is right or wrong or in between look at the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery. "Neither do I condemn thee..." And of course the explicit commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love one another.

That's it... We can only love. We have a future ahead of us to sort out the conflicts caused by all of this, it isn't going to be easy but we can control one thing and that is how we conduct ourselves and treat others. I tell my kids when they take the sacrament that they covenant to take Jesus' name upon them, which means when people meet them they'll know they are disciples of Christ.

If I'm being honest in many ways collectively we have failed as church members in this regard, particularly with some people on this issue. Today we can begin to fix that.

Bottom line is, no matter what stupid thing gets said about Sodom and Gomorrah, the end of days or anything else, we've got a singular thing to do and that is to love. It is doctrinal, it doesn't compromise your principals and it is the only thing that will fix anything.

[SeattleUte]

"His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

[DrumNFeather]

For anyone dreading this discussion, you need to be there and you need to clear up any of the crazies. As far as I am concerned the pattern is very clearly established as to what you and I need to do as a member. Regardless of your feelings about the issue, whether it is right or wrong or in between look at the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery. "Neither do I condemn thee..." And of course the explicit commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love one another.

That's it... We can only love. We have a future ahead of us to sort out the conflicts caused by all of this, it isn't going to be easy but we can control one thing and that is how we conduct ourselves and treat others. I tell my kids when they take the sacrament that they covenant to take Jesus' name upon them, which means when people meet them they'll know they are disciples of Christ.

If I'm being honest in many ways collectively we have failed as church members in this regard, particularly with some people on this issue. Today we can begin to fix that.

Bottom line is, no matter what stupid thing gets said about Sodom and Gomorrah, the end of days or anything else, we've got a singular thing to do and that is to love. It is doctrinal, it doesn't compromise your principals and it is the only thing that will fix anything.

Totally agree.

We had a 5th Sunday lesson a few weeks ago about people "struggling" and how to help them. After a bunch of back patting and huzzah's about how they've been deceived, my buddy, who is basically a New Order Mormon chimes in that he doesn't believe any of the truth claims of the church, and that people who struggle don't need help etc. In any event, one of the most staunch people that was being really harsh speaking in broad terms, apologized to him for not really considering that there are actually people attending that feel that way. I don't think the one on one interaction is ever as bad as some of the sweeping generalizations that are made. This is what we need to focus on.

[mUUser]

For anyone dreading this discussion, you need to be there and you need to clear up any of the crazies.....

I don't care what is said in the adult meetings. We'll see the whole gamut, with an emphasis of course, on parroting the press release and POTF.

My concern is the approach with the youth. I guess I don't trust people enough to believe it will be handled well. I'm expecting a cluster, and will likely keep my daughter away. The boy will probably find it all a little too weird.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

For anyone dreading this discussion, you need to be there and you need to clear up any of the crazies. As far as I am concerned the pattern is very clearly established as to what you and I need to do as a member. Regardless of your feelings about the issue, whether it is right or wrong or in between look at the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery. "Neither do I condemn thee..." And of course the explicit commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love one another.

That's it... We can only love. We have a future ahead of us to sort out the conflicts caused by all of this, it isn't going to be easy but we can control one thing and that is how we conduct ourselves and treat others. I tell my kids when they take the sacrament that they covenant to take Jesus' name upon them, which means when people meet them they'll know they are disciples of Christ.

If I'm being honest in many ways collectively we have failed as church members in this regard, particularly with some people on this issue. Today we can begin to fix that.

Bottom line is, no matter what stupid thing gets said about Sodom and Gomorrah, the end of days or anything else, we've got a singular thing to do and that is to love. It is doctrinal, it doesn't compromise your principals and it is the only thing that will fix anything.

Totally agree.

We had a 5th Sunday lesson a few weeks ago about people "struggling" and how to help them. After a bunch of back patting and huzzah's about how they've been deceived, my buddy, who is basically a New Order Mormon chimes in that he doesn't believe any of the truth claims of the church, and that people who struggle don't need help etc. In any event, one of the most staunch people that was being really harsh speaking in broad terms, apologized to him for not really considering that there are actually people attending that feel that way. I don't think the one on one interaction is ever as bad as some of the sweeping generalizations that are made. This is what we need to focus on.

I applaud both comments. With most of the leadership out of town for the holiday, I've been tasked to teach a combined YM/YW. In a way, I've been anxious about hearing from the bishop and asked to cover this, but maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing to tackle after all.

[Rocker Ute]

Maybe a signal of what should be taught regarding all of this:

LDS Church makes contribution to Utah Pride Center program

[LA Ute]

LDS Church makes donation to Utah Pride Center
Read more at http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/353...L8xcR0OQWOE.99




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

LDS Church makes donation to Utah Pride Center
Read more at http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/353...L8xcR0OQWOE.99




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The $2500 credit to the Bishop's Storehouse is a good start.

[Two Utes]

The $2500 credit to the Bishop's Storehouse is a good start.

Except that LA Ute would give more if he was inclined. I'm a little surprised it is getting co much publicity given the amount, but it's better than nothing.

[LA Ute]

The $2500 credit to the Bishop's Storehouse is a good start.

Baby steps.

[tooblue]

Except that LA Ute would give more if he was inclined. I'm a little surprised it is getting co much publicity given the amount, but it's better than nothing.

It's important to understand how the "credit" works, in relation to a Bishop's storehouse. It's not a one time donation. It's the opening of an ongoing relationship, granting access to a vast, world-wide welfare system. Meaning, the Utah Pride Centre could use that credit weekly, or monthly for as long as the two parties agree it's necessary, and as long as the LDS church is able to provide life sustaining material goods to the centre's recipients. It's $2,500 worth of food, or toiletries, or basic living materials to the centre's recipients.

A storehouse is set up like a grocery store: a person who is granted assistance is able to order and have delivered such things as: frozen meat (whole chickens and hams etc.), frozen vegetables, canned foods, toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrushes, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, shampoo, dog food, diapers, baby wipes, paper towels, finger nail clippers, hair brushes etc. Or they can visit the storehouse and take things they need directly off the shelf.

Most criticism of the LDS churches charitable contributions in communities all over the globe is absurd. Precisely because the critic is typically woefully ignorant as to how the LDS welfare system works. When the church establishes a Bishops storehouse anywhere in the world, it is a yearly million, if not billion dollar investment in a geographic region for as many years as the church is legally permitted to operate there.

[tooblue]

It's important to understand how the "credit" works, in relation to a Bishop's storehouse. It's not a one time donation. It's the opening of an ongoing relationship, granting access to a vast, world-wide welfare system. Meaning, the Utah Pride Centre could use that credit weekly, or monthly for as long as the two parties agree it's necessary, and as long as the LDS church is able to provide life sustaining material goods to the centre's recipients. It's $2,500 worth of food, or toiletries, or basic living materials to the centre's recipients.

A storehouse is set up like a grocery store: a person who is granted assistance is able to order and have delivered such things as: frozen meat (whole chickens and hams etc.), frozen vegetables, canned foods, toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrushes, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, shampoo, dog food, diapers, baby wipes, paper towels, finger nail clippers, hair brushes etc. Or they can visit the storehouse and take things they need directly off the shelf.

Most criticism of the LDS churches charitable contributions in communities all over the globe is absurd. Precisely because the critic is typically woefully ignorant as to how the LDS welfare system works. When the church establishes a Bishops storehouse anywhere in the world, it is a yearly million, if not billion dollar investment in a geographic region for as many years as the church is legally permitted to operate there.

To give you an idea of how a Bishop's Storehouse works in Utah with images:

https://providentliving.lds.org/welf...house?lang=eng

Outside of Utah, in my experience, they are structured more like an Aldi style store layout:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...b/Aldigang.jpg

[NorthwestUteFan]

According to the communications director for the center they applied for aid from Welfare Square in the amount of $2500, and that request was granted.

This is a step in the right direction. This center serves young homeless lgbt people, most of whom are on the street because their families threw them out.

[tooblue]

According to the communications director for the center they applied for aid from Welfare Square in the amount of $2500, and that request was granted.

This is a step in the right direction. This center serves young homeless lgbt people, most of whom are on the street because their families threw them out.

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...me-donation-to

The contribution — of an undisclosed amount — grew out of a first-time request for assistance with donations of perishable items for the food pantry program from the Utah-based faith's Welfare Square operations, Kent Frogley, the Pride Center's board chairman said.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Fox13 reported the amount as $2500.

http://fox13now.com/2015/07/01/for-t...-pride-center/