Friday, April 29, 2011

Amy Roloff In Utah with Habitat For Humanity

Amy Roloff is in Utah this weekend for Habitat for Humanity of Utah County's Women Build Week.

"She is here to kick off Habitat for Humanity of Utah County's Women Build Week on Saturday. After picking her up from the airport, Habitat staff members took her to dinner at a local Salt Lake hotspot and then headed over the Hatch's Family Chocolates for dessert. Ms. Roloff is very gracious and lots of fun! Amy truly appreciates the Provo Marriott for providing her a nice room with a beautiful view of the mountains. Tomorrow, Amy will be appearing on some local television and radio stations to help promote the special build week!"

You can follow it and see the full article and more pictures on Habitat for Humanity - Utah County on their blog:


Christine said...

I have mixed feelings. It's nice that Amy is working with a good group like Habitat for Humanity, but another freebie?

"...the Provo Marriott for providing her a nice room with a beautiful view of the mountains."

In my opinion, I think this is the main reason why Amy has her charity. I think helping is secondary. It allows her to travel around on someone else's dime, wine and dine at lovely restaurants and stay at no cost to herself.

People that I have respect for is normal everyday folks that spend their own money on gas or travel or that might even sacrifice a vacation day or a day off from work to volunteer.

It seems like everything the Roloffs do is free to them, but then they have their hand out looking for a pat on the back for their generous charity efforts.

ncy said...

I agree with Christine. While Habitat for Humanity is a great group to help out and I'm glad Amy is helping them, what I absolutely abhor is that each time any Roloff does anything "charitable," there's always the press release which reeks of "Look How Wonderful I Am." Truly charitable people choose to remain anonymous.

Carrie said...

That's the "Little Chocolatiers" store.

Tired from a long day of siding said...

As someone who has just come back at a day at Habitat, I just don't understand why she had to travel so many miles to "help out"? One of the main points behind habitat is community helping out each other to build a better community. Why can't she do that in her own home area? I know that the odds of me ever seeing those working off their sweat equity hours again are low, but I consistenly see those with whom I volunteered. Part of building a Habitat House is coming up with the funding. If someone else is paying her way- she is taking money from the funding of a house, a home.

Sandie said...

Well said, christine and ncy.
I wonder if they've read this part of their Bible?

King James Bible
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Take heed that ye do not your alms - The word "alms" here denotes liberality to the poor and needy. In the margin, as in the best editions of the Greek it is "righteousness;" either referring to almsgiving as eminently a righteous act, or more probably including all that is specified in this and the following verses - almsgiving, prayer, fasting, Matthew 6:2-18. Our Saviour here does not positively command his disciples to aid the poor, but supposes that they would do it of course, and gives them directions how to do it. It is the nature of religion to help those who are really needy; and a real Christian does not wait to be "commanded" to do it, but only asks for the opportunity. See Galatians 2:10; James 1:27; Luke 19:8.

Before men ... - Our Lord does not require us never to give alms before people, but only forbids our doing it "to be seen of them," for the purposes of ostentation and to seek their praise. To a person who is disposed to do good from a right motive, it matters little whether it be in public or in private. The only thing that renders it even desirable that our good deeds should be seen is that God may be glorified. See Matthew 5:16.

Otherwise - If your only motive for doing it is to be seen by people, God will not reward you. Take heed, therefore, that you do not do it to be seen, "otherwise" God will not reward you.

SixDegrees said...

The desire to make Amy wrong and bad is clouding the truth of the situation. If charities ran their fundraising with the King James bylaws as YOU have stated them, it would prevent charities from publicizing their organizations efforts and accomplishments.

“If your only motive for doing it is to be seen by people, God will not reward you. Take heed, therefore, that you do not do it to be seen, "otherwise" God will not reward you.”

People don’t and won't flood charities with money on request, fundraising is a process and it is not easy, even for what would be considered a worthy cause. That is why charities like HFH seek out celebrities like Amy to participate. With Amy comes publicity and donations and additional volunteer participants. It is a round robin of give and receive. Celebrities ‘lend’ their ‘celebrity’ to causes all the time. It may not be the celebrities motive to be seen by people, but it is the charities. Celebrity spokespeople are brought in for the main purpose of publicizing to raise awareness and money. The press release, facebook posts and twitter feeds are essential for it all to work and if the celebrity does their own additional facebook, twitter and press about it, that is even better because the more people who are aware the higher the dollars come in. Am I now to believe that this is against God’s will and he will not personally reward the celebrity? I think most people would have their doubts on this, but if it is so, all I have to say is THANK YOU! THANK YOU to all of the celebrities we have worked with, including Amy Roloff because even though they will not receive a personal reward from God, the charity has received tremendous rewards. THANK YOU for lending your celebrity and time to help raise awareness and funds with no personal gain for yourselves other than the satisfaction of knowing you were able to help.

Susan Coles said...

@Six Degrees

"That is why charities like HFH seek out celebrities like Amy to participate. With Amy comes publicity and donations and additional volunteer participants."

I don't believe that's it at all. You can't ignore the Roloffs history.

I can think of about 3 different Make A Wish visits with the Roloffs. They involved television cameras. One was a Portland tv show arriving for the filming. Newspaper articles. The whole works.

Make A Wish Foundation doesn't need that kind of "in your face" public attention. Most of the time the child receiving the wish is too shy or too sick to appear on the camera. With a meeting with a celebrity, there is no reason for all that attention except for the good PR for the celebrity.

There are many actors, athletes and musicians that participate in Make A Wish. Some you know because they always make sure to splash it all over in the news and some you don't know about.

What category do the Roloffs fall into? I think we all know the answer to that.

Judy B said...

Six Degrees, very well said. It's about the awareness the celebrity brings to the cause. That is exactly why charities seek celebrity spokespeople.

SixDegrees said...

Susan, your position is noted. I think it is unfortunate that you would rather condemn and judge our celebrity spokespeople. Thankfully most people are not tainted with that view and those are the people that we reach and who bring donations.

I also want to speak on the Make-a-Wish episodes you brought up. I am grateful that those wishes were able to be televised because contrary to your statement, Make-a-Wish welcomes the publicity. Televising the wishes brings the need for continued funding to the public eye and shows the impact and benefit of wishes coming true. It may also surprise you that most wishes are not to meet celebrities so the opportunity to bring it to the public eye, especially within a popular television show, is few and far between.

Also to be noted is that televising a wish does not occur without the permission of the wish recipient and their family.

Rap541 said...

Six Degrees - you would agree that in fairness, it would be rather ungrateful seeming of a wish recipent's family to NOT allow filming?

I don't think Make A WIsh is strong arming people, btw.... but... you have a sick kid who is about to get a huge treat that you, the loving parent, would normally not be able to afford. Lets not pretend that there isn't some pressure on the recipents to "give back" in the form of good press opportunities.

Personally I don't have huge issues with celebrity appearences. The Roloffs can be a bit "toot their own horn" over their charitable works.... I just trust we're all ok with deeming the Roloffs "celebs" and not "an average family just trying to live as they aren't on tv"?

Because the average joe isn't getting celebrity moments at charities.

Rap541 said...

Its also duly noted that yet again, when someone judges the Roloffs harshly, judging is deemed a bad thing.

As usual, Roloffs can merrily dish it out about screwball teachers and whatever else has pissed them off but bless us, never ever judge a Roloff. Too many negative comments makes Matt's heart problems worse and bless him for his judging others but how DARE anyone say ANYTHING other than "Matt and Amy are right, Matt and Amy are great parents, every thing Matt and Amy do is precious and NOT TO BE JUDGED. Only HATERS judge!" said...

Regardless of your personal thoughts or opinions, charities work tremendously hard to build and maintain credibility in fundraising, not to mention the stringent regulations they must abide by. I would NEVER agree “in all fairness” that any level of coercion or even gentle pressure is ever used or implied in any way to manipulate recipients of Make-a-Wish or any other charity to gain publicity. The truth of the matter is that for many families a filming opportunity is an added excitement of the experience, not an obligation or stipulation of being a beneficiary. If you want to get a better understanding I encourage you to volunteer your time and talents to a cause that interests you. Spending time in volunteer of a charity will curb your criticisms. Go to or or or to start that journey.

Timothy said...

"The truth of the matter is that for many families a filming opportunity is an added excitement of the experience"

The last Roloff Make A Wish photo-op, the kid refused to be on camera and the parents did not seem like they were living to be on camera. The fact is, many celebrities prefer to keep Make A Wish commitments private.

Rap541 said...

Six degrees - quite honestly, I think I make it clear I don't believe Make A Wish is strong arming anyone.

But again, do you seriously think that parents of a sick child who is recieving a once in a life time treat that their family couldn't otherwise provide don't feel ANY pressure to agree to filming if a celeb is involved? As it happens I have participated in Make a Wish events and yes, most families involved won't say no to cameras being there because they are grateful their kid is getting their moment... I don't know many people who wouldn't be slightly concerned that saying no might *cause a problem* with their child having that moment.

"Yes, we can have lil Johnny take a tour of Roloff Farms with Matt personally. Matt wants to have the local media do a little filming... you don't *mind* do you?" - is gentle coercion. Its understandible and frankly you're rather defensive over something most of us understand is part of the business. said...

Not having been involved in the coordination of such an event, you can only speculate on the content of such a conversation. I don't have to speculate. Recipients are not given any reason to believe that there would be a problem with their wish, the experience is for them and the MAW celebrity is more then willing to accommodate however they envision it to be. The insistence that it is in any way corrupt or that there is an alternate agenda in the works on the part of the charity or the celebrity is confusing, especially considering the lack of actual knowledge used to base that opinion.

Rap541 said...

Six - I don't have to speculate either. As hard as it is to believe, I've participated in Make a Wish events. I kinda think I actually said that. It is NOT unusual for a celeb to ask to film such an event and if you think there's utterly no subtle pressure to go along with it, then guess again. As it happens, I think Make a Wish is pretty accomadating of the parents wishes in that respect.... but the only way for a parent to not feel that pressure is for a celeb to not ask it be filmed for the media.

I'm guessing its not the *parents* who initiate the "lets film this for the local news" stuff, right? WHen you answer, keep in mind I've participated in a few of these.

And frankly I LOVE Make A Wish - its a great charity.... I find it hilarious that suggesting there is some tit for tat is being called "corrupt" is hilarious. said...

I think what you have made clear is that some people have a greater need to be right than they do to be correct.

I'm not guessing when I say, participating in a MAW event is different than coordinating a wish.

Rap541 said...

Six - so I'm right, but not correct? Or correct but not right?

I'm not guessing either, and since you are claiming to coordinate events - tell us all - who makes the request for media coverage?

The family?

Or the celebrity?

Speaking of someone's need to be right - you do or don't understand that I personally have no problem with MAW, I just simply think its bizarre that you are insisting its inconcievable for a recipients parents to feel any pressure at a celeb requesting media cover the event.

Really? You can't concieve that even being asked that might make a parent nervous or place some subtle pressure on them? Because gosh, I am perfectly willing to say that I am sure some parents love the media attention and some find it very easy to say to it... you're the one making the "I know, I am right, no parent ever feels any pressure to give in to a celeb's request, it simply never ever happens" point. :)

Did you mean yourself with your earlier comment, six?