Caring for the poor and needy


mordorbund
 Share

Recommended Posts

A week or so back, I posted what I thought were some interesting questions. Now I think I'd like to read some interesting answers. I know this is an LDS board and the original post of questions had an LDS slant, but I think it will also be interesting hear from all faith groups represented here.


 


James says pure religion is caring for the poor and the needy. Is this an individual requirement or an organizational requirement?  However you answered the last question, how does your church fulfill this initiative?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure 'requirement' is quite the right term. Caring for the poor and needy, to me at least, is a natural corollary to Jesus' two great commandments, the sum of the Law, that we should 'love God', and 'love each other'. I cannot see how we might fulfill these commandments, and not care for the poor and needy. That said, I have no particular church, and see all Christianity as my fiefdom. From my perspective, from which I view many rich Christians in an age of hunger, I consider that Christendom as a whole does reasonably well in this regard, but has room for improvement. And will continue to have room for improvement, so long as there is still left a solitary malnourished child.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure 'requirement' is quite the right term. Caring for the poor and needy, to me at least, is a natural corollary to Jesus' two great commandments, the sum of the Law, that we should 'love God', and 'love each other'. I cannot see how we might fulfill these commandments, and not care for the poor and needy.

 

Help me understand this better. I view "requirement" as a synonym for "commandment". If caring for the poor and needy is a natural corollary to the Great Commandments, then saying it's not a requirement means the Great Commandments aren't really commandments after all (modus tollens and all that).

 

 

From my perspective, from which I view many rich Christians in an age of hunger, I consider that Christendom as a whole does reasonably well in this regard, but has room for improvement. And will continue to have room for improvement, so long as there is still left a solitary malnourished child.

 

How does this square with your first sentence of such care not being a requirement? For instance, I don't consider it a requirement for a Christian Church to maintain standards of cleanliness. I view it as a good thing that's very nice and convenient and even a bit evangelic and inviting when it comes to the Great Commission, but it's not a requirement. So if I walk into a church and see it does reasonably well, but there's room for improvement in its janitorial watchcare, I just don't care. It's not a priority.

 

I get from some of your past posts that you view the responsibility towards caring for the poor differently than I view the responsibility to vacuuming rugs. Do you think it's not a requirement of a Christian Church? Or perhaps a Christian society of individuals (if churches should stay out of such politics)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From and LDS perspective, or at least from a Nephite perspective, the poor were taken care of by everyone. Jacob spoke about it, condemning his brothers for searching and digging for gold and lifting themselves up in pride when they obtained more than others. King Benjamin preached by example, what the greatest in the kingdom should do. Time and time again the true and faithful of the people in the Book of Mormon imparted of their substance to the poor and the needy. They gathered together often to fast and to pray and to succor those who stood in need. They understood the principle of consecration.

 

Is this an individual requirement or an organizational requirement? 

 

Both! Until individuals learn to become Zion, Zion will not be established. Zion is where all are pure in heart, live in righteousness and where no poor live among them. All are equal in temporal things. They have all things common. If they cannot be equal in temporal things, the Lord does not make them equal in heavenly things. We are not Zion. We claim to be the true church, but we are still individuals with individual pursuits. Many of us have covenanted to live the law of sacrifice. But how many of us have covenanted by sacrifice? We pay according to the law of tithing, though we have covenanted to live a higher law. What is stopping us from living the higher law today? Who is rising up? 

 

Are we waiting for a leader to rise up to tell us it is now time? Why isn't that time right now? Why wasn't it when we were baptized? There are some who live the law of consecration today with all their hearts and with all their strength, abasing ourselves to minister to and lift others up. This is what King Benjamin exemplified. This is what Joseph Smith exemplified. Let us rise up individually and sell all that we have, give to those within our reach and rather than covenanting to sacrifice, covenant by sacrifice. Perhaps then, heaven will finally take notice and we can begin to build Zion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about it being done organizationally is that enough in the organization must already be one heart and one mind. Otherwise, disharmony ensues. In 1833, the saints were chastises for falling short in this. They were not one heart and one mind. The Lord gave them a parable to explain this. But their reason for failing to establish Zion was:

 

 

D&C 101:Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even asAbraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son.

 For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.

 Behold, I say unto you, there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances.

 They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble.

 In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me.

 

If we can learn to let go of all our material possessions, all of which belong to God, and learn to truly become one heart and one mind, we would not ever suffer anyone within our reach to go cold or hungry. To be righteous is to be just. To live righteously is to live justly. We fall short of this from the greatest to the least. Who will be the light of the world if not us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Help me understand this better. I view "requirement" as a synonym for "commandment". If caring for the poor and needy is a natural corollary to the Great Commandments, then saying it's not a requirement means the Great Commandments aren't really commandments after all (modus tollens and all that).

 

 

 

How does this square with your first sentence of such care not being a requirement? For instance, I don't consider it a requirement for a Christian Church to maintain standards of cleanliness. I view it as a good thing that's very nice and convenient and even a bit evangelic and inviting when it comes to the Great Commission, but it's not a requirement. So if I walk into a church and see it does reasonably well, but there's room for improvement in its janitorial watchcare, I just don't care. It's not a priority.

 

I get from some of your past posts that you view the responsibility towards caring for the poor differently than I view the responsibility to vacuuming rugs. Do you think it's not a requirement of a Christian Church? Or perhaps a Christian society of individuals (if churches should stay out of such politics)?

 

 

Well, I just meant that if one regards the succour of the poor as a requirement, as a duty, as a necessary and irksome chore, then one is bound to have a fairly jaundiced view of philanthropy. On the other hand, if you love the people, as Jesus wants, then providing for their needs is no less a pleasure than providing for one's family. It's a question of attitude, not external imperative.

 

Cheers, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don't think it really matters too much whether it is done organizationally, or individually.

I do think that individual responsibility is given to the individual regardless of which method is used.

 

 

I view an organization as an entity so yes, I think organizations are expected to act responsibly in Gospel matters. We are at a greater strength to act as a group.  That does not absolve us individually.  As we become aware of opportunities to assist, we are obligated to act. 

 

So then, how does your church rise up to meet this responsibility of caring for the poor and needy? And, given the individual responsibility, does your church provide you with any direction or incentive on meeting this obligation?

 

Listen to President Monson and how he encourages us to help others.

 

Would you mind sharing a few of the quotes that stick out to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then, how does your church rise up to meet this responsibility of caring for the poor and needy? And, given the individual responsibility, does your church provide you with any direction or incentive on meeting this obligation?

 

Great question!  We help the poor and needy in several very specific and direct/tangible ways.

 

* We collect fast offerings monthly. Most active members give something to the fast offering each month. We're asked for the cost of two meals (however we choose to judge that). We have been encouraged to give as much as we feel we can afford. I've seen small families give $100 and even $200 a month. I've seen people give a dollar, but most are about $15 to $20. Multiply that by a few million people a month.

* Those funds are distributed to members of the church at the discretion of the bishop. They pay for electric, medical, housing - on a short term/basis.

* The excess funds are given to the stake and the church in general, for use in the building and maintenance of "storehouses, canneries and farms",or to share with wards that don't cover their own local short-term needs.  We volunteer our time to work the canneries. I'm sure you can find a lot of info on this online. 

* We allow people to give to specific funds to help out in times of crisis. We mark our tithing slip for "Tornado in Arkansas", or "Japan Tsunami", and the money goes directly to the relief effort.

* Our church always helps the general community when there is a crisis. Both financially from Salt Lake, or physically by local or gathered Saints. 

 

Again, I am sure you can find a lot of info online at Mormon.org or just searching in general.

Edited by sxfritz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church also properly understands the difference between "poor" and "needy" as they taught me this.  Needy are those who may be down and out but with a little help can get back on their feet. The "poor" are those who lack resources to overcome poverty or other difficulties.

 

The Church has training programs worldwide for assisting people in education and employment. My son's brother-in-law recently completed a motorcycle repair course sponsored by the Church and held at the Mission House in Peru. The primary mode of transporation in that city is motorbike. A dozen men qualified and were trained in that class for jobs that can help them provide in a city otherwise steeped in poverty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then, how does your church rise up to meet this responsibility of caring for the poor and needy? And, given the individual responsibility, does your church provide you with any direction or incentive on meeting this obligation?

 

sxfrits pretty much covered the first part of your questions for me. I'll have to think about the second part. Part of it is the inherent organizational structure where people who are moving into or out of the ward get help, sick or struggling families given meals and gifts. Yet none of this is mandatory and requires individuals to decide to participate as they can. The other part is encouragement of service, and advocating sites like http://www.justserve.org/aboutus/ to help people serve. The other part is when teaching about service contesting some of the excuses for people to not serve.

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be interesting, given the context of the thread, to talk about the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. It's a Victorian - say 1800 to 1900AD - distinction that has fallen out of favour in my country, the UK. The distinction is between those who do, and do not, merit charitable help.The idea was that there are some poor people who are poor through no fault of their own, and other poor people who are poor because they gamble, drink alcohol, do drugs, smoke tobacco, and generally have no one to blame but themselves for their impoverishment.

 

I have to say that my sympathies are with the poor, irrespective of whether they might deserve or might not deserve charitable assistance. Before we cast judgement, we would do well to walk a mile in the boots of the accused; and it seems to me that a modern economy has some very sophisticated methods of extracting cash from poor people with a low level of educational achievement.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anciently the poor were defined as the widow and the fatherless.  I would also ask not only how individuals or institutions care for the poor and the needy but how they determine who the poor and needy are?  If someone cannot or will not determine who are the poor and needy - that is a very obvious red flag that they do not and cannot be much help and that whatever they think their doing is nothing more than a vein cop-out excuse for religion or charity to justify their foolish misguided selfish vanity into thinking they have done their part and can pat themselves on their back and think themselves better than what they condemn as non or qualified givers.

 

One thing we should have learned from history is that the poor and needy are not defined as those with small or no amounts of money.  A multimillionaire on a wilderness path with a broken leg is just as needy as a popper on the same path with a broken leg.  We should know that throwing money at the poor and needy is not necessarily help.  In the just presented example - someone who has fallen on a wilderness path and broken a leg - being given money is not help.  We have also learned that giving money to certain poor is often not helpful at all.  How foolish and stupid can we be to do things that are not helpful and then condemn those that do noting - thinking that doing something that is not helpful is so much more wise and beneficial than those that do nothing????  It can be demonstrated rhetorically that doing something that is not actually beneficial is worse than doing nothing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I just meant that if one regards the succour of the poor as a requirement, as a duty, as a necessary and irksome chore, then one is bound to have a fairly jaundiced view of philanthropy. On the other hand, if you love the people, as Jesus wants, then providing for their needs is no less a pleasure than providing for one's family. It's a question of attitude, not external imperative.

 

Cheers, 2RM.

 

Once again, I need help in reconciling posts that don't agree in my mind. In this thread, I'm hearing that the philanthropy necessary to care for the poor cannot be required of Christians as that would eliminate the Christianity of the giver. It must instead be given out of the abundance of charity (Christ-like love).

 

And then I see posts like this elsewhere:

 

Now, the reason why I pick on redistribution of wealth is that it is necessary, to save the world in any temporal sense. And because it demands of rich Christians the need to sacrifice. Not their lives, as Jesus did, but some little thing less hard than that; the thickness of their wallets. And yet, this little thing seems hard enough, for many.

 

Where donors are selected not just because of their wealth but also because of their Christianity. And what's more, their charity is demanded of them! 

 

This latter comment seems more in line with your other posts, but this thread has a really different tone to it. Am I missing something then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I need help in reconciling posts that don't agree in my mind. In this thread, I'm hearing that the philanthropy necessary to care for the poor cannot be required of Christians as that would eliminate the Christianity of the giver. It must instead be given out of the abundance of charity (Christ-like love).

 

And then I see posts like this elsewhere:

 
 

 

Where donors are selected not just because of their wealth but also because of their Christianity. And what's more, their charity is demanded of them! 

 

This latter comment seems more in line with your other posts, but this thread has a really different tone to it. Am I missing something then?

 

No, you're missing nothing. I think somewhere between these ideas, that Christians ought not be rich while others starve, and that, for Christians, charitable giving, through taxation or otherwise, ought to be a pleasure, you will find my stance. 

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that I think is very much missing from this thread.  Everyone should have an attitude of giving.  The poor should be allowed and expected to give just as much as the rich.  What I would like to get away from is the idea that offering money is the best kind of giving.  In reality it is the worse.  We should give of our time and effort first.  And of our abundance of goods from our harvest next and lastly give of money.  Money being the least of value.  Those without much harvest or money should give freely of what they do have - time and effort.

 

This is why I love the LDS welfare programs.  There is no difference between rich and poor - both in giving and in receiving help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're missing nothing. I think somewhere between these ideas, that Christians ought not be rich while others starve, and that, for Christians, charitable giving, through taxation or otherwise, ought to be a pleasure, you will find my stance. 

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Good ought to be a pleasure. Forcing good, is not. 

 

There is nothing Christian to be taxed into helping the poor. If part of my income goes to supporting healthcare for the needy am I blessed for that? Maybe I have done a good thing, but I had no choice in doing said good thing. I also find no pleasure in it directly.

 

I do however, find much pleasure in giving income away at my own will. Forced charitable work sounds like the adversaries plan. Making people do good is not of God. If that were the case, things would be a lot different. No poor, no hungry, no wars, and no choices and no personal progress and growth. You cannot force sacrifice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Both! Until individuals learn to become Zion, Zion will not be established. Zion is where all are pure in heart, live in righteousness and where no poor live among them. All are equal in temporal things. They have all things common. If they cannot be equal in temporal things, the Lord does not make them equal in heavenly things. We are not Zion. We claim to be the true church, but we are still individuals with individual pursuits. Many of us have covenanted to live the law of sacrifice. But how many of us have covenanted by sacrifice? We pay according to the law of tithing, though we have covenanted to live a higher law. What is stopping us from living the higher law today? Who is rising up? 

 

Are we waiting for a leader to rise up to tell us it is now time? Why isn't that time right now? Why wasn't it when we were baptized? There are some who live the law of consecration today with all their hearts and with all their strength, abasing ourselves to minister to and lift others up. This is what King Benjamin exemplified. This is what Joseph Smith exemplified. Let us rise up individually and sell all that we have, give to those within our reach and rather than covenanting to sacrifice, covenant by sacrifice. Perhaps then, heaven will finally take notice and we can begin to build Zion.

 

 

 

Very well said, but If someone other than the prophet tells us they have received a vision that we (the church members) need to start living the law of consecration, I would question from what source they received that revelation.  I would question  anyone's revelation for the church if it doesn't come from the prophet (or the Twelve).  It is fine to personally want to consecrate all that we have to help others, but we are not required to live the law of consecration at this time.  When John Smith, the uncle to the prophet Joseph Smith questioned the church/membership in not keeping the law of consecration, the prophet Joseph Smith told his uncle that it wasn't necessary at this time:

On 6 March 1840, he (John Smith, uncle to Joseph Smith, jr.) met with Joseph and Hyrum, who informed him, “thus saith the Lord, you need not observe the law of consecration... (Journal).

 

Edit:  To clarify:  When I talk of the law of consecration above, I'm thinking of the church living the United Order.  We most certainly should live the law of consecration, especially those of us who have covenanted such in the temple.

 

 

 

 

Edited by classylady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We dedicate all we have, all our spiritual and physical gifts, all our money, all our effort, to the establishment and building up of God's kingdom on earth. Everything we do is to further this end.

 

Naturally, this encompasses such things as paying an honest tithe, but is far more comprehensive. It means that we seek to be the best spouse and parent we can. It means that we fulfill our callings and seek to magnify them. It means we perform our daily devotions, repent of our weaknesses, go to the temple, be good neighbors, do missionary work, and otherwise center our lives around Jesus Christ and his kingdom, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share