Social Justice in Our Church

[john doe]

Do you honestly believe the LDS Church (or its members) does nothing to assist the less fortunate? I think you haven't been paying attention.

[dorave]

Do you honestly believe the LDS Church (or its members) does nothing to assist the less fortunate? I think you haven't been paying attention.

Yeah, the church itself doesnt even believe in mere handouts with regards to needy member families utilizing welfare support.

[seekerw]

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.

I think that "To care for the poor and needy" involves individual members of the church choosing to help others out of their own resources. I don't think it's meant to apply to government taking money involuntarily from one group through taxation and giving it to others. The church has spoken out against the evils of the government dole, and free agency is a big principle of the church.

[Moksha]

I think that "To care for the poor and needy" involves individual members of the church choosing to help others out of their own resources. I don't think it's meant to apply to government taking money involuntarily from one group through taxation and giving it to others. The church has spoken out against the evils of the government dole, and free agency is a big principle of the church.

This does present a quandry. Should we back the one means that helps the poor on an widespread and consistent basis, or do we back something that is piecemeal and not as dependable? Should we do what Jesus would do, or should we choose the right-wing?

[Palerider]

Yeah, the church itself doesnt even believe in mere handouts with regards to needy member families utilizing welfare support.

you need to explain this.....please explain

[bytor2112]

Should we do what Jesus would do, or should we choose the right-wing?

Moksha...Moksha...Moksha..(sigh)....are you serious???? There are numerous scripture references to the "right" and not wanting to be found on the left. There is even a song we sing called "Choose the Right". I hope you figure it out before it's too late.

Edited March 23, 2010 by bytor2112

[john doe]

This does present a quandry. Should we back the one means that helps the poor on an widespread and consistent basis, or do we back something that is piecemeal and not as dependable? Should we do what Jesus would do, or should we choose the right-wing?

Your idea does present a quandry for you, since you claim that the 'right-wing' idea of helping people to help themselves is not Christlike. I submit that your assertion of such is false, and personally I tire of your constant claims of it. Just because we here don't adhere to your political bent does not automatically makes us all wrong, evil, or non-Christian. You can't honestly believe that Jesus would retain the current US model of welfare over the LDS Church model, can you?

[Moksha]

You can't honestly believe that Jesus would retain the current US model of welfare over the LDS Church model, can you?

My guess is that Jesus would want us to care for all the poor in full measure and gain eternal blessings for doing unto the least of me.

Administratively, would this not create a huge burden for our Bishops to take care of all Americans on a monthly basis, even if the did collect fast offerings from all?

.. since you claim that the 'right-wing' idea of helping people to help themselves is not Christlike.

Teach them not to be poor, eh? Would this involve sending them to the Wharton School or just handing them the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition?

Having people help themselves is fine, but should we wait till there are Stake Farms and Bishop's Storehouses aplenty? What about the rents? Just telling them to go forth and be poor no more is not going to cut it. Would we endorse a jobs creation program?

[Elphaba]

You can't honestly believe that Jesus would retain the current US model of welfare over the LDS Church model, can you?

What is the current US model of welfare?

Elph

[john doe]

You really don't know?

[john doe]

My guess is that Jesus would want us to care for all the poor in full measure and gain eternal blessings for doing unto the least of me.

Administratively, would this not create a huge burden for our Bishops to take care of all Americans on a monthly basis, even if the did collect fast offerings from all?

Teach them not to be poor, eh? Would this involve sending them to the Wharton School or just handing them the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition?

Having people help themselves is fine, but should we wait till there are Stake Farms and Bishop's Storehouses aplenty? What about the rents? Just telling them to go forth and be poor no more is not going to cut it. Would we endorse a jobs creation program?

I was going to respond to this point by point, but then I realized that it would be of no use. Your mind is made up and there will be no changing it. Let me just say that your premise is dead wrong. This has explained to you many times before and yet it does not sink in.

[Just_A_Guy]

My guess is that Jesus would want us to care for all the poor in full measure and gain eternal blessings for doing unto the least of me.

Administratively, would this not create a huge burden for our Bishops to take care of all Americans on a monthly basis, even if the did collect fast offerings from all?

Go down to your local Bishop's Storehouse and ask them if they have figures on what percentage of their customers are not Mormons.

You may be surprised.

[MarginOfError]

Your idea does present a quandry for you, since you claim that the 'right-wing' idea of helping people to help themselves is not Christlike. I submit that your assertion of such is false, and personally I tire of your constant claims of it. Just because we here don't adhere to your political bent does not automatically makes us all wrong, evil, or non-Christian. You can't honestly believe that Jesus would retain the current US model of welfare over the LDS Church model, can you?

Interesting that you say that, because on several occasions, I've seen assignments passed out in PEC and welfare committee meetings to help a member fill out the paperwork to receive government assistance. I'm not sure that it's all that uncommon for the Church's model of welfare to use the US model of welfare to accomplish its goals.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree. Just that it isn't as cut and dry as either you or Moksha are arguing. (in fact, I'd be inclined to say you're both wrong.)

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Moksha! I hope you are doing well. :)

My guess is that Jesus would want us to care for all the poor in full measure and gain eternal blessings for doing unto the least of me.

Administratively, would this not create a huge burden for our Bishops to take care of all Americans on a monthly basis, even if the did collect fast offerings from all?

Teach them not to be poor, eh? Would this involve sending them to the Wharton School or just handing them the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition?

Having people help themselves is fine, but should we wait till there are Stake Farms and Bishop's Storehouses aplenty? What about the rents? Just telling them to go forth and be poor no more is not going to cut it. Would we endorse a jobs creation program?

I don't think that any good Mormon would argue that caring for the poor is a bad thing or that it is something we should not do. Therefore, I don't believe the issue is about whether or not one should care for the poor. Rather, the issue is what is the best way to help the poor and is it the place of a secular government to mandate welfare?

One thing is for certain and that is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is rooted in free agency. Without agency the Plan of Salvation would be useless to actually save anyone. The freedom of the individual to choose is sacrosanct. God respects our agency to such a degree that He often allows horrible things to be done by people and to people. Understanding the principle of agency, it's vital role in our salvation, and that it is an inalienable virtue of individuals is key to answering the questions as to "What is the best way to serve the poor?" and "Is it the place of a secular government to mandate welfare?"

The problem with any government mandated welfare is that it is founded on the principle of forced action. This is in opposition to the gospel principle of freedom and agency. First, forced action has no redeeming qualities. What I mean is that if one is forced to do something, they cannot be saved. It is contrary to our Heavenly Father's plan. In fact, it was Lucifer's plan to "force" everyone back to heaven, which was of course contradictory in nature. Second, forced action is an affront to man's agency. This has always been the primary reason why secular communism has failed or produced repressive governments because such notions rely on man forfeiting their freedom so that a government can decide what is best. I will go so far as to say that any law or program that errodes personal freedoms are fundamentally Satanic, no matter how they are masked in language of supposedly serving the "greater good." In contrast, God's way of "communal" living is always freely entered in to and freely participated in.

Another problem with government mandated welfare is that it is a form of stealing. Any government program that forces individuals to give up property or wealth so that it can be redistributed to others effectively is government endorsed stealing. In the United States, a constitutional republic that is based on governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, any government sanctioned redistribution of wealth constitutes an overreach in the governments delegated authorities. Our form of government is based on delegated rights from the individual. As individuals, none of us are justified in forcefully taking the property of another and give it to someone else, even if it is to the needy. Because we do not possess this right it cannot be delegated to the government. Therefore forceful redistribution of wealth by the government is an exercise of authority that it does not rightfully have, which, in this case is stealing from one to give to another.

A successful welfare program must be one that is founded on the principles of freedom. It must respect individual freedoms and agency. It should hold those receiving assistance accountable. It should come from those institutions that are best equipped to provide for the needy, which are our religious and private humanitarian organizations. It should be a program that provides opportunities for individuals to actually live in a charitable way rather than forcing "goodness". It should never be a program that sacrifices personal agency and freedom for the supposed "greater good".

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 23, 2010 by Finrock
Spelling correction

[MarginOfError]

Good afternoon Moksha! I hope you are doing well. :)

I don't think that any good Mormon would argue that caring for the poor is a bad thing or that it is something we should not do. Therefore, I don't believe the issue is about whether or not one should care for the poor. Rather, the issue is what is the best way to help the poor and is it the place of a secular government to mandate welfare?

One thing is for certain and that is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is rooted in free agency. Without agency the Plan of Salvation would be useless to actually save anyone. The freedom of the individual to choose is sacrosanct. God respects our agency to such a degree that He often allows horrible things to be done by people and to people. Understanding the principle of agency, it's vital role in our salvation, and that it is an inalienable virtue of individuals is key to answering the questions as to "What is the best way to serve the poor?" and "Is it the place of a secular government to mandate welfare?"

The problem with any government mandated welfare is that it is founded on the principle of forced action. This is in opposition to the gospel principle of freedom and agency. First, forced action has no redeeming qualities.

Yet, I suspect for all this talk about free agency and forced action having no redeeming qualities, you would be in favor of laws that force a pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term.

I've never bought into the free agency argument here because it's irrelevant.

What I mean is that if one is forced to do something, they cannot be saved. It is contrary to our Heavenly Father's plan. In fact, it was Lucifer's plan to "force" everyone back to heaven, which was of course contradictory in nature. Second, forced action is an affront to man's agency. This has always been the primary reason why secular communism has failed or produced repressive governments because such notions rely on man forfeiting their freedom so that a government can decide what is best.

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.

I will go so far as to say that any law or program that errodes personal freedoms are fundamentally Satanic, no matter how they are masked in language of supposedly serving the "greater good." In contrast, God's way of "communal" living is always freely entered in to and freely participated in.

Nonsense. The church collects and distributes funds the same way the government does. And if you don't pay into the Church, you don't get the benefits of participation. Just as if you don't pay your taxes, you don't enjoy the benefits of participating in our society. There's very little difference.

Another problem with government mandated welfare is that it is a form of stealing. Any government program that forces individuals to give up property or wealth so that it can be redistributed to others effectively is government endorsed stealing. In the United States, a constitutional republic that is based on governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, any government sanctioned redistribution of wealth constitutes an overreach in the governments delegated authorities. Our form of government is based on delegated rights from the individual. As individuals, none of us are justified in forcefully taking the property of another and give it to someone else, even if it is to the needy. Because we do not possess this right it cannot be delegated to the government. Therefore forceful redistribution of wealth by the government is an exercise of authority that it does not rightfully have, which, in this case is stealing from one to give to another.

A successful welfare program must be one that is founded on the principles of freedom. It must respect individual freedoms and agency. It should hold those receiving assistance accountable. It should come from those institutions that are best equipped to provide for the needy, which are our religious and private humanitarian organizations. It should be a program that provides opportunities for individuals to actually live in a charitable way rather than forcing "goodness". It should never be a program that sacrifices personal agency and freedom for the supposed "greater good".

More to come...but I have to meet my carpool.

Regards,

Finrock

[Moksha]

One thing I have noted about our Church, is its commitment to social justice. It is only natural that we are engaged in such behavior since this was a major part of Jesus' message. Look at all the service we give to others. If you are still skeptical, ask yourself in whose name we are providing such service.

--------------

One thing about government, is that it encompasses all citizens of a nation, regardless of whether they have declared themselves to be sovereign states on their 2010 Census form. A nation's government is the one entity that is both capable and empowered to care for its citizens. For social justice to exist for a nation's citizenry, it is incumbent upon government to provide action to ensure this justice.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon MarginOfError. I hope you've had a great day! :)

First of all, thank you for taking the time to read my post and engaging in this conversation with me.

Yet, I suspect for all this talk about free agency and forced action having no redeeming qualities, you would be in favor of laws that force a pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term.

I've never bought into the free agency argument here because it's irrelevant.

Well, we shouldn't confuse freedom and free agency with anarchy. The Declaration of Independence reinforces the truth that all individuals are born with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One may be tempted to think, "Well, since I have an inalienable right to pursue happiness, I have the right to do whatever makes me happy!" Such a notion would be incorrect, of course, as it neglects to consider that all individuals hold the same right. Therefore, we can exercise our inalienable rights only to the extent that they do not infringe on the inalienable rights of others. If this discussion were to be about abortion, I would argue that it is within a governments duty to protect the inalienable right to life of an innocent person. However, because this isn't about abortion, I will go no further. Suffice it to say, I don't find your counter argument against the principles of free agency to be very compelling because it confuses the principle of free agency with anarchy and misses the point.

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.

I hear your challenge. Can you provide proof for your assertion? If so, will you do so?

Nonsense. The church collects and distributes funds the same way the government does. And if you don't pay into the Church, you don't get the benefits of participation. Just as if you don't pay your taxes, you don't enjoy the benefits of participating in our society. There's very little difference.

I do not agree that the "church collects and distributes funds the same way as the government does." I freely entered in to covenants with the Church and continue to freely participate in it. In a government mandated system, I have no choice. So, even if the system is reprehensible to me I cannot choose to not buy in to the system and I cannot choose to not participate. These are two fundamentally opposed principles. The difference is diametrical.

My second objection to your point in this quote is that wealth redistribution or mandated welfare is not the same as having to pay taxes. Being against wealth redistribution does not mean that one is against paying taxes. When a community selects individuals and delegates to them the authority to protect the community it does so with the understanding that those who are representing the community must be supported in their task to do so, else the representatives cannot do what they have been delegated to do. Our government taxes it's citizens so that it can go ahead with its task of protecting our inalienable rights. This is one thing. It is another thing altogether when said government begins to take wealth intended to protect our individual rights and redistributes it to other private citizens because they are needy. It is wholly outside of the scope of the duties of a government. It becomes stealing when the government takes upon itself authorities it does not have and forcefully removes wealth from one to give to another.

More to come...but I have to meet my carpool.

I look forward to the rest of your response. Have a safe trip! :)

Regards,

Finrock

[Suzie]

Beck does not think before opening his mouth or better, he does it knowing the kind of reaction he will get, I guess it is permissible for the mightly dollar.

[Palerider]

Beck does not think before opening his mouth or better, he does it knowing the kind of reaction he will get, I guess it is permissible for the mightly dollar.

Just like the bigest majority of Politicians....they talk before they think...examples...Biden and Pelosi. Only difference, they don't do it for the mighty dollar....:)

[john doe]

Just like the bigest majority of Politicians....they talk before they think...examples...Biden and Pelosi. Only difference, they don't do it for the mighty dollar....:)

No, they do it for the power trip.

[Just_A_Guy]

A nation's government is the one entity that is both capable and empowered to care for its citizens.

Which governments have been able to sustain a cradle-to-grave, universal social justice system for a period lasting at least a century? What is the current budgetary outlook of said countries?

[Moksha]

Which governments have been able to sustain a cradle-to-grave, universal social justice system for a period lasting at least a century? What is the current budgetary outlook of said countries?

Not sure if any countries had such health care coverage back in 1910. Wouldn't it be a hoot if they were able to diagnose and treat such things as "bodily humours" and "Female Problems" on a full coverage basis? Bet there were enough leaches to go around back then, without burdening the railroad and oil trusts excessively. After all, they had yet to drain and pave Walden Pond.

My guess is the budgetary outlook for countries that currently have such universal health care, like Japan and Germany is quite good.

[Palerider]

Not sure if any countries had such health care coverage back in 1910. Wouldn't it be a hoot if they were able to diagnose and treat such things as "bodily humours" and "Female Problems" on a full coverage basis? Bet there were enough leaches to go around back then, without burdening the railroad and oil trusts excessively. After all, they had yet to drain and pave Walden Pond.

My guess is the budgetary outlook for countries that currently have such universal health care, like Japan and Germany is quite good.

wow.....good thing you said you were guessing....

[Moksha]

wow.....good thing you said you were guessing....

Civilizations wax and wane. Some like Rome and Damascus seem to go on and on. The good they do often lives after them and the good times should be measured in the social justice they accorded their citizens.

[Palerider]

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