One of my clients likes to write really complex sentences that don't actually make much sense or at least don't really say that much:
By acting upon the promptings and inspiration that the gospel brings to those who trust in the Lord, your generous gift demonstrates your love for God and His children.
The gift acted upon the promptings and inspiration? Why do we need to separate out promptings and inspiration? Why do we need to specify that these promptings and inspiration come to those who trust in the Lord? Is it really accurate to say that the gospel brings the promptings and inspiration, or does the Lord or the Spirit bring those things?
Thank you for creating the life-affirming hope that comes to those who now have the ability to become self-reliant in spiritual and temporal matters.
What does it mean for this hope to be life-affirming? Why do we have to say that the donor created the hope and that the hope then came to those people? Why can't we just say that the donor gave them hope? But if we just say that the donor gave them hope by helping them become self-reliant, which is the most direct way to say it, then it kind of undercuts the message that these people are self-reliant, because they relied on someone else to become self-reliant. (The way the LDS Church talks about self-reliance is probably a whole other can of worms.)