Love in Action

mouseketeer wrote:I am new to this forum and new to the area and I am quite astonished. From the things said on the two major forums, I find no way to tell what really happened. Well, other than someone said something, some people got mad and left and now there is talk about forced bible study, lack of catholic culture, and very little about abused and neglected children. What if the people who left and who supposedly had a long history with this orphanage were to sit down with the perceived offenders and worked at a solution? The outcome could be different if everybody were to apologize, forgive and move on; the children would maybe have their volunteers returned to them and they would have been given a real life experience in forgiveness and being responsible. Where are the adults, by the way? "Adults" who have given time and emotional support to abused children should never leave without having tried all avenues of reconciliation and if there are none, then doing a skillful job of separating from the children. Poor kids, now they can add another abandonment to their already long list of abuse.

How can others just ignore this well, thought-out stated statement and just move on to patting each other on the backside or belittling others? You people really do amaze me.

Very well said, David. Taking a hard stand on ones personal agenda, whatever that may be, is fine . But to take that stand at the expense of 40 plus needy, at risk children is not fine. The original mission statement and the original mission itself has served these children well for a long time. It doesn't matter if these people are christians or the devil's own...damage done is damage done..
Ms.Thang
Share Holder

Golly day, I was speaking of the small minded people who left as volunteers. Hunh? I sure don't understand how this works; misunderstood is misunderstood at LiA or on this forum. Wow




Posts: 205
Join date: 2012-04-23

It may have been a well thought out statement, but it was admittedly made without having the benefit of knowing just what happened.
None of us knows, since none of us were there.

And Parker: You don't know what happened either, so enough of the blame game before you do know.

The poster a) doesn't realy know what happened, and b) offers an oversimplified solution. She's right in that the kids are the ones that will suffer. But suggesting that folks "play nice in the sand box" isn't a solution. The people involved have already tried to resolve the issue and failed. So, time to move on. BTW, what's your suggestion?

Please read the following article and watch the video:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/charities-deceive-donors-unaware-money-goes-to-a-telemarketer.html

Now can someone/anyone explain why one shouldn't be cynical when it comes to fundraising for charities?

I'm surprised everybody doesn't know about the telemarketing racket already. It's not a new phenomenon. You gotta do your homework when you're giving away money, for heaven's sake. I give to charity, but never ever over the phone. And I don't give anything to the "big box" charities any more except for FPP (Plan Canada), through which I have supported two kids for years. Not the same two, of course.

When my own kids were going to school in our rural community, we were constantly fundraising for something - soccer team, grad, school trip, whatever. And of course there was no end of fundraising packages available that were, in fact, more lucrative for the opportunity providers than for us. Chocolate almonds, boxes of oranges, pewter ornaments, magazines, wrapping paper - you name it. People got awfully tired of selling each other stuff we didn't want! The chocolate almonds were OK though - I just left them where the man of the house could get at them, and collected from him when he'd finished them off.

Our best fundraisers were running bingos in the city. We'd supply volunteers and get a cut of the take. At least that way we could bring in "outside" money instead of collecting from each other.

One year we were raising money to send the Grade 11s to Spain. We just about killed ourselves with bake sales, raffles and movie nights and we were getting sick of it. Somebody got the bright idea of collecting worn-out cultivator blades to sell for scrap iron. Most of the farmers would just chuck the old blades in the bush because it wasn't worth taking in just a few. All the kids got in their family pickups, collected scrap from far and wide, and drove it to a central collection point. We had quite a pile. One of the Dads who hauled pipe to the oil fields donated the use of his big flatbed to haul the scrap into the city on condition we'd cover the fuel. I can't remember how much we raised with that venture, but I do remember we were happy about it. Of course that kind of fundraising isn't charity - just us working together for our own community.

mouseketeer wrote:I am new to this forum and new to the area and I am quite astonished. From the things said on the two major forums, I find no way to tell what really happened. Well, other than someone said something, some people got mad and left and now there is talk about forced bible study, lack of catholic culture, and very little about abused and neglected children. What if the people who left and who supposedly had a long history with this orphanage were to sit down with the perceived offenders and worked at a solution? The outcome could be different if everybody were to apologize, forgive and move on; the children would maybe have their volunteers returned to them and they would have been given a real life experience in forgiveness and being responsible. Where are the adults, by the way? "Adults" who have given time and emotional support to abused children should never leave without having tried all avenues of reconciliation and if there are none, then doing a skillful job of separating from the children. Poor kids, now they can add another abandonment to their already long list of abuse.

Certainly no personal offense intended to the OP, but this is sunshine theorizing at its most naive. One cannot make an assumption that one is better prepared to deal with this kind of situation, when one doesn't even know the facts. Oh, were it so simple, that all the world's problems could be solved with altruistic bombast.

You can hope for this kind of outcome; you could even suggest it if you were to act as an intermediary; but you most definitely cannot offer it as a critique when you are not even involved and have "no way to tell what really happened".

Knowing some of the former board personally, I know how deeply they cared about LiA and know that the hostile takeover must have been devastating for them to react this way. I was roundly criticized for quoting the missionary's little video on TOB just before the discussion was closed. I am sure the former board members feel badly enough without being told that standing for principals doesn't matter and that they should just let the nice people take over and do it their way for the sake of the children. Sometimes principals do matter. It was much more than a few words in a mission statement.

gringal wrote:It may have been a well thought out statement, but it was admittedly made without having the benefit of knowing just what happened.
None of us knows, since none of us were there.

And Parker: You don't know what happened either, so enough of the blame game before you do know.

O.K., granted I don’t know all the particulars in this case but human nature is generally the same. One side gets a stick up their backside and refuses to bend (compromise). We see it on this board all the time and the elderly are much more so, IMO. LCS is a prime example, IMO.

CheenaGringo wrote:Please read the following article and watch the video:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/charities-deceive-donors-unaware-money-goes-to-a-telemarketer.html

Now can someone/anyone explain why one shouldn't be cynical when it comes to fundraising for charities?

How do you think this relates to LiA? Is there something we need to know?

Back in the seventies one of the more touted charities gave only about 4% of the money to the actual cause. I mentioned this to my mother-in-law and her response was "Well that's 4% more than they would have gotten otherwise." Something to think about. I still help only those I can deal directly with but those that have millions their time has value.

I don't think you need a "stick up your ass" or be elderly to resist changes you think will be detrimental to an organization. Any organization.

Before escaping to Mexico, I was involved in an organization that owned their own grounds and buildings when a lawyer and a few others got the bright idea that we should become a 501c outfit to avoid taxes. As a result, the state "owns" a very, very valuable piece of property in a CA resort destination, for all practical purposes. To compound it, the organization failed to follow the guidelines and have just gone forward in the old way, with their fingers crossed ever since. Last I heard from friends, trouble is on the horizon.
So........things happen. Sometimes a palace coup isn't a good thing.

Let me stress, however: I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT LIA. Seems like nobody else who actually knows (other than the spokesperson for the winners) is willing to spill the beans, either.

As far as contributing to "cloud-based" charities is concerned, my mum would have had a hissyfit if she found out that only 4% of her contributions were actually being used for charity. Me, too.

Logical thinking is just as much a "set in our ways" affect as is following the same routine every morning: it gets stronger every year. Which makes us look even more sharply at potential BS as we get older.

HelperGuy wrote:Logical thinking is just as much a "set in our ways" affect as is following the same routine every morning: it gets stronger every year. Which makes us look even more sharply at potential BS as we get older.

Logical thinking is something that I believe should start a long time before we get settled into any routine, and I agree that our B.S. meters should become more efficient with life experience for validation.

Absolutely. And those that deny logic through their formative years have great difficulty in discussions such as these.

Charity navigator evaluates 501 c3 non profits in the U.S and most major donors, tax consultants/advisors and corporations depend on it when making their gifts and donations. http://www.charitynavigator.org/ It's a very useful tool.

RoofBob wrote:Charity navigator evaluates 501 c3 non profits in the U.S and most major donors, tax consultants/advisors and corporations depend on it when making their gifts and donations. http://www.charitynavigator.org/ It's a very useful tool.

No listing on there for either Deeper Waters Ministry or Love in Action.

HelperGuy wrote:Absolutely. And those that deny logic through their formative years have great difficulty in discussions such as these.

And each person believes his/her own viewpoint to be logical, because each person sees the world through the lens of his/her own experiences and perceptions. Kind of like the old Five Blind Men and the Elephant tale. Nobody really sees the whole picture, but we all see a part, so we can all learn from each other.

But anyone who can't take time to understand another person's point of view, illogical as it may seem, will also have difficulty in discussions such as these, because he/she will only be able to discuss issues with people he/she is already in agreement with. Those discussions are fine for mutual suppport; not so fine for increased understanding.

Gringal wrote: No listing on there for either Deeper Waters Ministry or Love in Action.

Certainly Charity Navigator is a useful tool, especially when evaluating charities of which you have no personal knowledge. And their list of support criteria is a good check-list for donors. But they only list charities that declare fund-raising expenses. I don't know about LiA, but it's possible Deep Water Ministry doesn't claim fund-raising expenses.

Anyway I gotta go do something useful now, so I'll say goodbye and leave you all to continue discussing.

You make a good point, Traveller, but Logic with a Capital L is not about understanding a point of view. It's a formal study with inflexible rules, and when a point of view fails the test, it fails. To become a true believer, whether it be in a religion or a political cause, you need to replace Logic with Faith.

Compassion and understanding are about being a considerate human being who is willing to listen to those who disagree and may even be persuaded to a different point of view.

BTW, love the fantasy cat.

I can see a little bit of my own point of view in almost every post on this thread. I don't think that this controversy is fueled by hate...fear, maybe...but not hate.

It's clear to me that Deeper water Ministries intentions are nothing but good, but after reading their website I can't help but to observe that the Romey's seem to be very ill equipped and unprepared to carry out their mission here. It cracked me up when I read the part where they were living in " a very poor community called El Chante"....good grief.
Geez they just sound so...green, so gringo, so NOB, so...broke and asking hither and yon for "support" to provide for their OWN (what they consider to be ) "basic" needs here in Mexico. It just seems like they have a long way to go before they can hold their own, much less lead the children at LIA to a better life. They seem to have very little understanding of life in Mexico. Meanwhile, they have alienated many of the major supporters and even the smaller contributors who make LIA possible....and thats a fact. What a mess.

They do make some excellent points about the needs of "the orphanage" , especially about how ill prepared the children are for life outside of LIA when they reach 18 years of age, and they have some good ideas and aspirations.
But, just for example, the fact that they refer to LIA as an orphanage is inaccurate and could even be considered misleading. LIA is a shelter for at risk children. Most of the children there have parents that are unable to care for them because of addiction, illness, poverty or some other familial dysfunction and many of them only stay there a short time before they are returned to their families. Some of them have been abused and removed from their homes and may or may not be returned to them sooner or later.
In my opinion, if you are asking people for funds you need to be accurate in your statements about your cause, otherwise your potential supporters (the ones that know better) might doubt you. People have been burned before and don't want to be burned again.

When Anabel and the board of well known community members were holding the reins at LIA there was a high level of confidence about financial contributions being used appropriately. Now, people seem to have some concerns about that and funding will drop.

Right now it doesn't matter what the "real" story is, LIA's supporters have formed an opinion which is negative in part. LIA needs to do some serious damage control, probably more than just a statement from Anabel.
I think that everyone would like to hear Deeper Waters Ministries point of view on the mass exodus of the LIA board , the controversy at hand and their role in it but so far they haven't offered.

When I volunteered at LIA a few years ago Anabel told me that the shelter did not receive any government funding, LIA was supported entirely by the community and private sponsors. Is this still true?

http://www.deeperwaterministries.org/index.php?p=1_4_News

RoofBob wrote:Charity navigator evaluates 501 c3 non profits in the U.S and most major donors, tax consultants/advisors and corporations depend on it when making their gifts and donations. http://www.charitynavigator.org/ It's a very useful tool.

Not really sure how useful that "tool" is, we're non profit and our ministry doesn't show up on that site. If you google our ministry name the non profit number comes up on a couple of different public sites. Maybe it has to do with state to state, idk. Why would anyone think LiA would be on that? It's in Mexico, founded in Mexico, and I don't think you get tax credit for donating in Mexico unless it goes through a non profit in the USA, or maybe other countries. It's not difficult to give tax credit to a donor if the missionaries have a non profit in the states that can help them with that, if they don't have their own. Not sure if they announce that giving is tax deductible. Some people don't care if they get tax credit, they just want to help and they believe in the cause. There's a lot of smaller ministries out there that don't have big overhead of a large charitable organization that takes 8%. I know we don't.

It's a shame that feelings were hurt and there were unresolved misunderstandings. I know I'm the minority on this but it was overstepping boundaries to change the established missions statement a year ago. People were trying to help but they overlooked that it was disturbing to the existing ministry to remove Christ centered, so they put it back. That's what it is. I explained earlier but sometimes when people are offended and jump to conclusion, they can't hear anything else. It's better to step back and take a breather. If they get past it, better for them. We've never noted that when it's a worthy cause and someone leaves there isn't another that will come along and fill the gap. It sounds like LiA was already in need of repairs so can't imagine it getting much worse. People will come together and work for the common cause because they love those kids.

Expats need to remember that Mexico is still a country that displays nativity scenes. One of the largest nativity scenes I've ever seen is in Andares Mall, the swankiest mall in Guadalajara, at Christmas time. This isn't the USA where Christ's existence is often denied.

You're right, and that's why Mexico doesn't need the "help" of evangelicals from the USA. Help is best defined by the recipient, not the giver. Ask the kids what they need and I doubt a single one of them will say, "a minister from the USA."

Well, that's your feelings David but someone in Mexico is extending the invitations. All ministries outside of Mexico must have an invitation and national covering to exist here.

Borders aren't what they used to be. The world is a real mixed pot :)

Chapalagringa wrote:Well, that's your feelings David but someone in Mexico is extending the invitations. All ministries outside of Mexico must have an invitation and national covering to exist here.

Maybe so, but it isn't the kids extending the invite. I think that is David's point.

Several years ago, while volunteering at LIA, I had the pleasure of a long chat with Anabel. Having just retired after 19 years as the associate director of a large non profit with many shelter programs I was very interested in her level of knowledge and how I might help. To my delight Anabel seemed to have a masters level education and experience in operating a non profit. I was truly impressed and remember thinking I would hire her in a second if she would have interviewed for any of our programs. With that in mind I can't imagine how things got so out of control. I don't know the details, just what I've read here but something is really odd about this whole situation.

Chapalagringa wrote:Well, that's your feelings David but someone in Mexico is extending the invitations.

Who would that be?