TookieClothspin

who said anything about condemning other's needs? when someone is in a bad spot, there is a difference between choosing to dig the hole and choosing to claw your way up and out. church welfare is for maintaining life, not maintaining a lifestyle. during my time called to a relief society presidency, i had to be directly involved with the task of working with the bishop determining need when the RS president was away for an extended amount of time. it's probably the most awkward and uncomfortable thing i've ever had to do for other people. it's awkward on both ends to tell someone "no, we can't get you such and such food item because it's a luxury and not a dietary need." it's also awkward to catalog someone's pantry and help them come up with an acceptable meal plan that utilizes what they have along with selected items from the bishops storehouse. all the awkwardness ends up being worth it when people learn the hard lessons and can eventually make it on their own. it's much easier to just go with an ebt card and get whatever you want. the problem is that doesn't teach you to be self sufficient nor does it promote nearly the amount of awareness or frugality necessary to dig yourself out of a bad spot. the way distribution of church welfare works is far different.

There is a difference between being "poor" and making decisions that will make you even more "poor."

I am glad that you brought that up. I am very aware of the limitations and time constraints of fertility. My husband and I married in our very late 20's. He was entering graduate school and I was working. Having "finally" found the opportunity for marriage in our almost 30's, starting "early" was not an option. And being older, we already had financial responsibilities that weren't going to take a pause so that I could quit work, raise babies, and magically come up with money for his schooling. He had student loans & tuition to pay and I had already bought a house (which turned out a blessing since it was cheaper than rent). Those things and our remaining needs had to be financed in some way, so I worked. My job required a significant amount of travel, so in order to make children a reality, I started looking for a job that would allow me more flexibility. That took over a year and I then would have to take a significant pay cut. We tried to make our budget work with that pay but adding the cost of childcare and the numbers just weren't going to fit so I kept my existing job. Currently, my husband only had a little over a year left in school so we decided to give kids a go and that we could make it work. My works generous maternity leave program will give us a good buffer if it works out that way and my parents have moved to our town so they could help with childcare if needed. Is it ideal? absolutely not. But it will be good enough and my husband will soon be able to enter the workforce again to ease our burden. The only reason I tell you all of this (and you can pick it apart all you want) is because maybe I did want a particular number of kids, but sometimes circumstances and timing just simply don't allow for it. We make our choices based on limited information about our future and a little trust in personal revelation. I'm well into my early 30's and my circumstances probably won't allow me to have what I initially wanted. And that's ok. I will count us blessed even if we can't even have one child. Could I have made other choices? Of course. I could have quit my job and had my husband take out massive student loans to pay for our needs. And I could have then probably gotten medicaid to pay for the hospital bills and foodstamps to ease the grocery burden. Would that have been a good decision? I say no. No one else has the responsibility to pay for what I want. "Want" is simply not a good enough reason. But, I don't think people who choose gov't aid to have kids are necessarily bad people who are disobeying counsel. I think they have their heart in the right place, I just don't agree with their ideas behind making it happen or their interpretation of the two counsels (self reliance and having kids). Hopefully, you don't think I'm morally preening for pointing out that the two counsels don't have to contradict. It has been my experience that the moral preening has come first from those who have children via help from medicaid and other welfare programs. In my ward, when the topic of children or family finances coming up someone starts going on about how great they are for their struggle. I hate it when people act like exclusive martyrs. My ward is in a college town, so we have tons of masters and phd student families. A few weeks back, a guy flat out said "Couples who are delaying children due to the financial strains of education are following satans plan to destroy the family." Then, another guy chimed in "Yeah, you just pop 'em out and Heavenly Father will make the rest of it work out for you." Oh dear no. I had to say a little prayer for strength not to lash out. So, that's where I'm coming from. I think the moral of the story for the OP @Doorman is that they have made well meaning choices that have led them to require help. Take the help and do everything to get off it asap. Don't make further choices that make you to keep needing it. You feel bad about it for a reason and that's a productive feeling to have. Take the feeling and harness it to help guide yourself to self-sufficiency. Keep on keeping on and you'll be fine! And not that he's going to, but don't be like the couples in my ward and act like your struggle makes you more righteous than those who made choices the avoid needing help. Neither way is going to get you a better spot in the Celestial Kingdom if your heart is in the right place regarding parenthood and self-reliance.

The two counsels can harmonize just fine. If a recently married couple, who cannot afford even the medical cost of bringing a child into the world, is working towards the goal of being able to pay for the costs and then some, is it really "delay" if they are actively working towards it? I dare anyone to call them unrighteous (or whatever) if they desperately desire parenthood and are putting their best efforts towards making it a reality.

It depends heavily on the state you're in, but if someone is eligible for WIC or Medicaid (and only have 1 child, this is important because of the sliding income scale), it's unlikely they're actually paying income taxes. And any actual income tax they do pay, is going to come right back to them (and then some) due to refunds and credits they're likely eligible for. Of course, they are paying SS and Medicaid but that has nothing to do with WIC or Medicaid. So no, they're not paying into the program they're taking from. And I seriously doubt that the level of income OP is at, that he is paying enough in taxes (and then getting back+) to cover the cost of the birth of his child that the taxpayers will be picking up with medicaid.