Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Spiritual self reliance


Recommended Posts

That's a great talk!!!! I think, hope? it relieves Bishops from thinking they have to be all things to all people and also hopefully people won't expect their Bishops to solve all their problems. the BEST bishop i've ever had said once, I have no idea but I know someone who does and he put me in contact with an expert and it worked!:)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rpn said:

The counsel of never turning to the government has been changed since 1978.

It was changed in the 2000s. Quietly, and without fanfare, but it was there and then, suddenly, all materials on welfare said to avail yourself of any government and community welfare you could before turning to the Church. :(

It was remarkable to me. The quote from President Grant about abolishing "the evils of a dole" and J. Reuben Clark about rescuing what's finest inside of people through self-reliance have similarly been removed from discussion about welfare. 

I still teach the "old-fashioned" welfare principles. I think the goal is for people not to need SNAP, WIC, county cash assistance, or Section 8 housing. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

It was changed in the 2000s. Quietly, and without fanfare, but it was there and then, suddenly, all materials on welfare said to avail yourself of any government and community welfare you could before turning to the Church. :(

It was remarkable to me. The quote from President Grant about abolishing "the evils of a dole" and J. Reuben Clark about rescuing what's finest inside of people through self-reliance have similarly been removed from discussion about welfare. 

I still teach the "old-fashioned" welfare principles. I think the goal is for people not to need SNAP, WIC, county cash assistance, or Section 8 housing. 

Hey our taxes pay for it so why not use it?  Of course the problem is that many people use much more of it than they ever paid in taxes. 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Hey our taxes pay for it so why not use it?  Of course the problem is that many people use much more of it than they ever paid in taxes. 

Because it's spiritually damaging to people.

I get why the Church changed. It shifts a significant amount of drain onto local and federal governments. But that, in itself, is not living according to self-reliance principles. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, rongo said:

Because it's spiritually damaging to people.

I get why the Church changed. It shifts a significant amount of drain onto local and federal governments. But that, in itself, is not living according to self-reliance principles. 

It's not automatically or always spiritually damaging to people though.  It can be, but that is different than saying it is.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Hey our taxes pay for it so why not use it?  Of course the problem is that many people use much more of it than they ever paid in taxes. 

I do not like it because one so often has to cede some control of their lives to the government. My current wife had to "go on the dole" when her husband left her for another woman when she was six months pregnant with her last child and with five other children. Once that happened she was effectively trapped, and looked down upon and criticized by so many people, even in her local ward. When she attempted to make some extra money to help make ends meet, and faithfully reported a ten dollar sale of a cake she had made, her food stamps were decreased by thirty dollars and her monthly stipend was decreased by thirty dollars the next month.

Temporary assistance because of a catastrophe or such is fine, but anything that would cause me to have to cede more control of my life to an entity that has shown little competence in administrating just about anything would worry me.

Glenn

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

It's not automatically or always spiritually damaging to people though.  It can be, but that is different than saying it is.

Well, a generation ago, the Brethren would have said that it is automatically and always spiritually damaging. That's why the quote (now in disuse) was that people are to muster resources in this order: 1) self 2) family 3) the Church 4) not in any case the government, ever.

Yes, this has changed in our day. But I think that the eternal principle remains the same. This is my experience in working with people. 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Duncan said:

When things go good people don't want the Government, when things go bad who do they blame? The Government. Trying to have it both ways is a tight rope to walk

Maybe it is because some of us believe that God will give us our needs (after all we can do) through a government that lives certain laws and bestows a gift of provision for its people.  In America..we believe this land is choice above others for a reason.  But the bottom line is that it is after all we can do.and faith in prayer.  Sometmes the governments are the answer to those prayers...for a time.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And obviously the brethren would have been wrong a generation ago.  Otherwise, there is no defense for them to currently be telling people to do something that is spiritually damaging, right?

What was a person supposed to do who had no resources from self, family or the church (and i've seen the church refuse to give help to someone before--as they should have under the circumstances--so that does happen)?  Just lay down and die, happy to know they weren't damaging themselves spiritually?  That's just dumb.

My Mum used to be a RS Pres. years ago and the Bishop refused to give someone groceries, Mumsie was like, "what are they supposed to eat? the Bishop's principles?" 

Link to comment

I pay a lot in taxes which drains my ability to help others so I do not believe it is bad for those in need to use government programs. It is what these programs are designed for. I especially feel Medicaid is a necessity for the working poor or they would be unable to afford healthcare. I am against abuse and fraud of the system but a safety net for the poor is an important element in our society.

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Maybe it is because some of us believe that God will give us our needs (after all we can do) through a government that lives certain laws and bestows a gift of provision for its people.  In America..we believe this land is choice above others for a reason.  But the bottom line is that it is after all we can do.and faith in prayer.  Sometmes the governments are the answer to those prayers...for a time.

Canada is in America!!!! There is the Yankee side and the Canuck side!

Link to comment
Just now, Duncan said:

Canada is in America!!!! There is the Yankee side and the Canuck side!

You make me smile...thank you.  Oooo...after I read my post..I worried that you would think that I would put Canada on a bad side..no ways...lots of relatives in Canada!!

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You make me smile...thank you.  Oooo...after I read my post..I worried that you would think that I would put Canada on a bad side..no ways...lots of relatives in Canada!!

well, in that case watch this!

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

well, in that case watch this!

 

Oh...off to get my hat...I have got the lumberjack down to a science...love this!!  Like the curler too...like are you guys this fun...can I come and visit you???

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not like it because one so often has to cede some control of their lives to the government. My current wife had to "go on the dole" when her husband left her for another woman when she was six months pregnant with her last child and with five other children. Once that happened she was effectively trapped, and looked down upon and criticized by so many people, even in her local ward. When she attempted to make some extra money to help make ends meet, and faithfully reported a ten dollar sale of a cake she had made, her food stamps were decreased by thirty dollars and her monthly stipend was decreased by thirty dollars the next month.

Temporary assistance because of a catastrophe or such is fine, but anything that would cause me to have to cede more control of my life to an entity that has shown little competence in administrating just about anything would worry me.

Glenn

Many years ago after I lost my job I went on unemployment benefits.  I looked diligently for a job, but one week I attempted to earn some extra money selling vacuum cleaners door to door. This didn't work, and I didn't earn a penny, but faithfully reporting that activity reduced my unemployment benefit significantly for a few weeks.  It was like: you attempted to go off the dole? How dare you!!  Take that, varlet.  The government's attempts to "help" can sometimes make things far worse. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, bluebell said:

And obviously the brethren would have been wrong a generation ago.  Otherwise, there is no defense for them to currently be telling people to do something that is spiritually damaging, right?

Not obvious. We have pendulum swings in the Church all the time on policy and practice (and emphasis), and I don't believe that newer or more recent is always better. Nor does it always stand the test of time. That's why the pendulum swings . . . 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, bluebell said:

What was a person supposed to do who had no resources from self, family or the church (and I've seen the church refuse to give help to someone before--as they should have under the circumstances--so that does happen)?  Just lay down and die, happy to know they weren't damaging themselves spiritually?  That's just dumb.

I could see it in extreme circumstances, but in my experience, this approaches zero. When it is clear to people that there will be no backstop, no safety net, then they magically find work. Or relocate. Or family that you were told absolutely cannot help . . . helps (usually, when people say they have exhausted resources, they haven't tried family. The Church is far less embarrassing to go to). 

The problem with government or church assistance is it is very, very hard to have it be short-term while people are back on their feet and don't need it any more. And you are an ogre for teaching and adhering to welfare principles. Definitely not the fun part of being a bishop. 

Link to comment

I do temp work during the summer. Day-labor construction, but there is office and factory work as well. If you're signed up and are there are 4:00 AM, you have work, and it pays daily. So, if someone needs an electric bill and a car payment paid, is able-bodied, and can't find work, I give them the cards for the agencies and tell them to drop my name when they apply (I'm one of their primary reliable workers, and I have a car and can pass a drug test). ;)  With the daily pay, you can keep the wolves at bay and plan and attack bills in order of importance or due date.

I have only had non-members take me up on that .  No members will even apply, and they feel ill-used that I insist that they work through that while they are looking for something more permanent. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, rongo said:

It was changed in the 2000s. Quietly, and without fanfare, but it was there and then, suddenly, all materials on welfare said to avail yourself of any government and community welfare you could before turning to the Church. :(

It was remarkable to me. The quote from President Grant about abolishing "the evils of a dole" and J. Reuben Clark about rescuing what's finest inside of people through self-reliance have similarly been removed from discussion about welfare. 

I still teach the "old-fashioned" welfare principles. I think the goal is for people not to need SNAP, WIC, county cash assistance, or Section 8 housing. 

It was that way up in Canada and elsewhere.  You wouldn't have enough leftover after taxes to totally reject government assistance.  Taxes mean you are paying for the service, why not use it?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not obvious. We have pendulum swings in the Church all the time on policy and practice (and emphasis), and I don't believe that newer or more recent is always better. Nor does it always stand the test of time. That's why the pendulum swings . . . 

I wasn't very clear, sorry.  What I meant was that the brethren currently believe that the views of the past brethren were wrong a generation ago.  Otherwise, the recommendations would not have changed.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...