Social Justice in Our Church

[Guest]

I challenge the idea that the affront to man's agency was the primary reason for secular communisms failures. More likely, it's the fact that high level national leaders are ill-equipped to understand the low-level local needs of an individual.

How is the United States of America different in this regard?

[FunkyTown]

Again....you were and are just guessing ...:)

Well, the collapse of the Euro isn't really thanks to health care, Pale.

Too many debtors to carry - The Globe and Mail

Greece were kind of jerks about the whole thing.

[Moksha]

Again....you were and are just guessing ...:)

Palerider, of course I am guessing. If not, would you nominate me for Chairman of the Federal Reserve? They could use some sure knowledge.

[Palerider]

Palerider, of course I am guessing. If not, would you nominate me for Chairman of the Federal Reserve? They could use some sure knowledge.

aaaahhhhh......nope

[Rico]

And later this year, the Church is scheduled to release a new edition of the CHI adding a purpose, "To care for the poor and needy." Service to the down trodden will no longer be considered a component of the current purposes, but it's own purpose and end. What does that mean in the context of social justice? I don't know

I do know that the Church is in favor of fair treatment, fair pay, and better livelihoods for all people. I also know that the Church has no stance on how those goals should be met in a civic context.

So the three fold mission of the church is changing? I was always taught that perfecting the saints was that caring for the poor and needy.

Does this also mean that the church will actually start caring for the poor and needy rather than telling them to keep the faith?

[Just_A_Guy]

[Original post deleted by me--JAG]

Never mind . . .

Edited March 27, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[dorave]

So the three fold mission of the church is changing? I was always taught that perfecting the saints was that caring for the poor and needy.

Does this also mean that the church will actually start caring for the poor and needy rather than telling them to keep the faith?

I agree with Rico. Keeping in mind, churches can only teach principles and not forced them. There is always a choice.

[pam]

Does this also mean that the church will actually start caring for the poor and needy rather than telling them to keep the faith?

Smiley face aside at the end of your sentence, but do you really believe the Church currently does nothing to care for the poor and needy?

[dorave]

Well, the collapse of the Euro isn't really thanks to health care, Pale.

Yeah, coz Healthcare in Europe truly is FREE.

[Moksha]

An interesting article about social justice from the Church's MormonTimes:

Rawls believed that societies based on capitalism should have strong social welfare mechanism. Henrichsen joked that basically, it would look like Sweden.

While admitting that most Mormons would not be excited to live in a social democratic system, Henrichsen said, "I find when looking at LDS scripture certain themes that are very similar to those of Rawls."

One idea is that we should have a certain equality. Jacob laments in the Book of Mormon how great prosperity and wealth have led some to persecute the poor "because (they) suppose that (they) are better than they" (Jacob 2:13). This pride is a regular theme throughout the Book of Mormon and it divides the people. "We somehow (feel we) are naturally or morally superior if we are wealthy," Henrichsen said.

In 3 Nephi 6:12, the people are distinguished in ranks according to their riches and learning. "And thus there became a great inequality in all the land" (3 Nephi 6:14).

"This reminds me of a strong theme within Rawls," Henrichsen said. "(Rawls) is not really arguing about inequality but arguing about democracy. A society that is marked with great inequality can not be democratic."

Political power in such a society would be wielded by those with the greatest resources, Henrichsen said. It cannot survive without some sense of equality. Extreme inequality leads to collapse.

The danger is when people who are wealthy believe that they deserve their wealth. In Mosiah 4, King Benjamin warns about believing a beggar deserves his condition. Thinking wealth is deserved and poverty is deserved are two sides of the same coin. "You don't have an absolute claim to that wealth," Henrichsen said, "because you live in a society that makes that possible."

It is a recognition of factors beyond ourselves in our accumulation of wealth. "Once we start to view ourselves as deserving of wealth we have, we soon begin to forget about God," Henrichsen said.

MormonTimes - Social justice in the Book of Mormon

It's neat to read how Mormonism and liberal thought can mesh together on the issue of social justice. When we get caught up in property rights and imbue them with more importance than people, our view as to the meaning of the Gospel of Jesus becomes hopelessly disoriented.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Moksha
added last paragraph

[FunkyTown]

Yeah, coz Healthcare in Europe truly is FREE.

I'm... Not certain what you're saying here.

What did that have to do with my posting? I was saying that public health care hasn't caused the free-fall of the Euro. Can you tell me exactly what your point was? Obviously, your point that there are costs incurred with health care to the government is correct.

I'm just not certain what that had to do with my post and why you quoted it?

[Elgama]

Yeah, coz Healthcare in Europe truly is FREE.

its free at point of delivery not free

[rameumptom]

Palerider, of course I am guessing. If not, would you nominate me for Chairman of the Federal Reserve? They could use some sure knowledge.

The problem would be that we wouldn't know when you were serious or just talking tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps that kind of problem is what caused this economic collapse? Someone in the Fed said, "Hey! Let's turn all the banks into casinos!" and everyone else bought into the idea....

As for social justice, at what price? Do we give up our freedoms? Or do we risk bankrupting societies? There has to be a balance, otherwise everyone will quit work and think the government will feed and care for them in the name of social justice. But when no one works, no one eats, either.

Isn't it better to find ways to employ people and help them succeed, rather than just bail them out? Or else, why should we stop at health care? Why not buy everyone their own house and car(s) and clothing, and etc.? The risk is, every time a federal government is placed in charge of everything, the people lose incentive to create and work and expand themselves and the economy. This is why the Soviet Union went broke: they spent faster than the people were willing to develop. Yet, now we see that a Russia with greater freedoms has developed a larger and stronger economy than the Soviets had.

[Guest]

An interesting article about social justice from the Church's MormonTimes:

MormonTimes - Social justice in the Book of Mormon

It's neat to read how Mormonism and liberal thought can mesh together on the issue of social justice. When we get caught up in property rights and imbue them with more importance than people, our view as to the meaning of the Gospel of Jesus becomes hopelessly disoriented.

That kind of liberalism is not what you're supporting tho, Moksha. Liberalism at its roots is in harmony with the principles of the church. It is what got America out of the clutches of Britain - and we all agree (don't we?) that event was inspired by God.

But, your idea of liberalism today is a far cry from liberal principles! Liberalism at its roots mean that the freedom of choice resides with the individual - when you take out that choice so that they HAVE TO practice social justice it ceases to be liberal. It becomes something else.

I am liberal. But, I don't understand liberalism of today, so I'm wary of using that label to describe me anymore. I'm currently, un-affiliated.

[bytebear]

Liberalism v. Progressivism (which crosses party lines)

[Connie]

That kind of liberalism is not what you're supporting tho, Moksha. Liberalism at its roots is in harmony with the principles of the church. It is what got America out of the clutches of Britain - and we all agree (don't we?) that event was inspired by God.

But, your idea of liberalism today is a far cry from liberal principles! Liberalism at its roots mean that the freedom of choice resides with the individual - when you take out that choice so that they HAVE TO practice social justice it ceases to be liberal. It becomes something else.

I am liberal. But, I don't understand liberalism of today, so I'm wary of using that label to describe me anymore. I'm currently, un-affiliated.

If you're talking John Locke Liberalism, i'm with you. He's supposed to be the father of liberalism. I'm reading his Second Essay Concerning Civil Government and loving it. I really love his chapter on Property. That's liberalism i can live with. Nothing whatever like what liberals are today.

[Elphaba]

You really don't know?

Having been a recipient of welfare, I do know. However, I find most people think they know, but are wrong.

(Sorry it took me so long to respond. I honestly forgot I made a comment in this thread.)

Elphaba

[Moksha]

Having been a recipient of welfare, I do know. However, I find most people think they know, but are wrong.

Elphaba

When the Church reminds the poor and destitute to tithe, I have assumed they appreciate the Security Security and Supplimental Security Incomes that the elderly and disabled receive and tithe upon. Has this been your experience as well?

[HEthePrimate]

When the Church reminds the poor and destitute to tithe, I have assumed they appreciate the Security Security and Supplimental Security Incomes that the elderly and disabled receive and tithe upon. Has this been your experience as well?

Out of curiosity, if a person has paid tithing all her working life on her gross income and then retires, should she then pay tithing on the income she receives from Social Security? I mean, she already paid tithing on the amount that went into the Social Security system, so wouldn't paying again be double tithing?

HEP

[HEthePrimate]

Having been a recipient of welfare, I do know. However, I find most people think they know, but are wrong.

(Sorry it took me so long to respond. I honestly forgot I made a comment in this thread.)

Elphaba

Agreed. Many people have this image in their head that the government model encourages lazy people to live a life of ease at taxpayers' expense, when in fact the system fails miserably to provide enough help to a large number of honest people in need.

And the same people who rattle on about "welfare queens" and the "evils of the government dole" insist that churches and private charities are enough to take care of the poor. Sorry, but the resources the churches and private charities have are woefully inadequate, too. And some of the more "conservative" ones assume the attitude that the poor deserve to be poor, and let them sink.

Sorry if I sound angry, but I'm sick and tired of the class warfare the wealthy have been waging against the poor.

HEP

[Just_A_Guy]

Out of curiosity, if a person has paid tithing all her working life on her gross income and then retires, should she then pay tithing on the income she receives from Social Security? I mean, she already paid tithing on the amount that went into the Social Security system, so wouldn't paying again be double tithing?

I think, technically, you're right--to a point. But I think in the long run people get back more from Social Security than they put into it (though not as much as they could have gotten had they been allowed to keep and invest their money themselves; but that's another topic). So, once you retire, you'd have to figure out at what point (possibly allowing for inflation) you've gotten back more than you put in.

If I thought I'd actually receive Social Security on retirement, then probably the best way to go about it is to simply deduct my Social Security withholding from the amount on which I pay tithing, and then tithe my SSI income later. But I sincerely think the system will be broke by the time I retire; so I figure I may as well just tithe my entire income (even the SSI withholding) now.

Sorry if I sound angry, but I'm sick and tired of the class warfare the wealthy have been waging against the poor.

This kind of language really doesn't move the discussion forward. To talk like this while still chiding conservatives as overly histrionic for talking about Obama's "assault on personal liberty" would seem to entail a certain amount of doublethink.

[pam]

Out of curiosity, if a person has paid tithing all her working life on her gross income and then retires, should she then pay tithing on the income she receives from Social Security? I mean, she already paid tithing on the amount that went into the Social Security system, so wouldn't paying again be double tithing?

HEP

In addition to what JAG said, I think people get so caught up in the technical aspects of what should or should not be tithed, we totally forget the spirit of the law.

[Moksha]

Out of curiosity, if a person has paid tithing all her working life on her gross income and then retires, should she then pay tithing on the income she receives from Social Security? I mean, she already paid tithing on the amount that went into the Social Security system, so wouldn't paying again be double tithing?

HEP

One of the internet Bishops wrote a good piece years ago about this question. His conclusion was that this does not have to be tithed upon, however that does not stop many members in this circumstance from giving out of love for God. Probably doesn't have to be of any set percentage in this case, but it is their way of providing Divine support from their social justice.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Moksha

[dorave]

but it is their way of providing Divine support from their social justice.

LOL, are you serious??

I thought it was more like, 'giving from your heart!'

[Moksha]

LOL, are you serious??

I thought it was more like, 'giving from your heart!'

We were taking about paying tithing from Social Security checks, but if one wanted to wax poetic, we could think of them as coming from the heart of the tither with Uncle Sam as the intermediary.