Revised mission of the Church stirs controversy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Where have you seen evidence of this that LDS perceive it as "HUGE news"? It seems to me just to be making something explicit that's always been there implicitly.

I agree with this. Similarly, the Church had been proclaiming the gospel and redeeming the dead long before President Kimball formulated those two pursuits into a mission statement.

[Deborah]

Actually medicare is being expanded to help even more; which is truely the christian way;

Then you haven't been paying attention. They are making drastic cuts in order to put more people on Medicare. I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks burdening a system already on the brink of bankruptcy will help anyone. The Christian way is for individuals to give of their own free will. Otherwise it's not charity but extortion.

No, I don't think this is just because of the problems in the USA. It appears we are going the way of the rest of the world and our nation will soon no longer be able to afford to help the rest of the world as we have in the past. Therefore more will fall on the churches and local organizations to help the poor in their communities, which is as it should be.

[LeSellers]

When the church helps those in need, its Gods word; when the government does it; its robbery?

Absolutely.

All funds given to the Church are given, and there is no retribution for not giving (in spite of what we often see claimed here). There are no men in fancy hats with badges and guns who come to your door and who will, if provoked in the least, kill you without fear of legal reprisals.

In the case of government, if you refuse to "give" what the state demands, there will be men in fancy hats, with badges and guns, who will slay you if you refuse to pay the amount their overlords have decreed to be your "fair share". They will take you home, they will confiscate your automobile, your furniture, and your freedom.

If these men were without badges and fancy hats, we would call this "extortion", but as they are so accoutered, we call it "taxation". There is no difference, except for the fancy hats and the badges. The guns, of course, are standard for any criminals, with or without badges and hats.

Those who want to care for the poor have abundant avenues for their generosity. However, many of them feel compelled to force others to be generous, as well; not only generous, but generous in one specific way (which just happens to coincide with the path chosen by the enforcers, wouldn't you know?).

The fact that this elect path is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuses may make some a bit squeamish about using that method, but the self-appointed, self-anointed, knowing best, as always, get their way (backed by a veritable host with its badges, hats, and guns).

Unseen (even though what is seen is ugly enough) is the fact that each such intrusion robs the taxpayer of, not only his money, but of his freedom: The freedom, for instance, to choose on which charity to bestow his gift. The freedom to choose the size (and even the form) of the gift. The freedom to choose whom his gift will benefit.

Another thing stolen by the state in its pursuit of utopia (and power over people) is the benefits that accrue from true charity: the personal growth that comes from giving of one's own volition. It also steals the ability to give, since what is left after the extortionists have gone their way is often not sufficient for personal charity.

And, perhaps even more destructive is the fact that "the poor" develop an entitlement mentality and those whose resources were confiscated begin to resent them. This builds a class warfare posture on both sides ("they won't give us enough" vs. "there is no end to their demands"). Those whose means are taken by force lose a part of their humanity

[katherine the great]

BAM!

[John Williams]

Personally, I very much appreciate that they added the phrase to the church's mission. How anyone could find controversy in that is beyond me.

As I said on my blog, Mormons are wonderful, caring people in general, and putting a more explicit focus on charity just makes things that much better.

[jozov]

I checked out the SL Trib boards. I don't know why this controversial.

Helping the needy is an honorable cause. Its awesome that the church wants to focus on this task.

You would think that the church came out and said the fourth mission of the church is to drink the blood of puppies based on some of the Trib posts. I don't get why people are getting upset over this.

[GingerRed]

I think it is a great idea! Although I think serving the poor and needy has always been part of being LDS, its nice to see it emphasized...

Here is an example of how I think ALL wards should be like!

A few weeks ago, I've been watching my non-member friend and her husband and sons go through many trials. They are good Christian folks, although they don't belong to any one denomination. Feeling an inspiration, I decdided to put to the test of something a former Bishop told me years ago. That a Bishop is technically responsible for the welfare of his 'flock' within the bounderies of his ward, Mormon or not! So...I put in my friends address into the find a meetinghouse page on lds.org. It came up with the ward assigned to that address in TN. On a Sunday, I called the ward office and got the first counselor on the phone. I intoduced myself and explained the situtation and aksed if he could do anything to assist my dear non-member friends, who's husband had contracted Leigionare's disease and just lost his job for taking off time for his illness. The wife was just getting over a bout of pnuemonia herself. You know what that first counselor said? Without hesitation, he said we'll get right on it!! I told him to be mindful that they weren't LDS and not to prostylize, ( so not to scare them off) and just help out where ever they could. He said not to worry.

I week later...I get a message from my girlfriend saying how grateful and proactive I was, not to just offer support but actually DO something! she said...do you know how many of our local friends here were symapthetic and supportive...by I took it a step further and DID something! She said...it was just like in a movie!...a knock came on our door and when my husband answered it....the First counselor said..."I hear you are in need of a friend. " she was thanking me over and over! And here I was ...a bit worried how they might react..and I was SO releived to see that this Counselor..took it upon himself..and personaly went out and see what he could do to help! They now have an appointment with the Bishop of that ward to see if they can help with food from the Storehouse and whatever else they can help with. All by just being an example....being compassionate...and just being there for a total stranger!

I am totally impressed with how that ward responded to my plea! THAT is how EVERY ward...EVERY stake should be!! Nevermind that your nieghbors are jewish, Catholic, Baptist, whatever! All you need to do is say....I am here if you need me!

I get so tired of hearing statments like....oh those Mormons only take care of their own! Oh my child can't play with the kids next door because we're not LDS! Even right here in Utah! Makes me ashamed of those Saints who don't know the meaning of the word Christ-like!! I have more friends who are NOT LDS then LDS! And I would do for my non-member friends as much as I would do for my LDS friends!

LDS members should not only be 'color-blind', but 'Member-blind' too!

.....And I mentioned to my girlfriend not to be surprized if members of the Relief Society show up at her door now with pies and cakes! LOL

Red

[LeSellers]

BAM!

On behalf of all freedom lovers, thank you for your support.

Lehi

[Mortal Man]

Absolutely.

All funds given to the Church are given, and there is no retribution for not giving (in spite of what we often see claimed here). There are no men in fancy hats with badges and guns who come to your door and who will, if provoked in the least, kill you without fear of legal reprisals.

In the case of government, if you refuse to "give" what the state demands, there will be men in fancy hats, with badges and guns, who will slay you if you refuse to pay the amount their overlords have decreed to be your "fair share". They will take you home, they will confiscate your automobile, your furniture, and your freedom.

If these men were without badges and fancy hats, we would call this "extortion", but as they are so accoutered, we call it "taxation". There is no difference, except for the fancy hats and the badges. The guns, of course, are standard for any criminals, with or without badges and hats.

Those who want to care for the poor have abundant avenues for their generosity. However, many of them feel compelled to force others to be generous, as well; not only generous, but generous in one specific way (which just happens to coincide with the path chosen by the enforcers, wouldn't you know?).

The fact that this elect path is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuses may make some a bit squeamish about using that method, but the self-appointed, self-anointed, knowing best, as always, get their way (backed by a veritable host with its badges, hats, and guns).

Unseen (even though what is seen is ugly enough) is the fact that each such intrusion robs the taxpayer of, not only his money, but of his freedom: The freedom, for instance, to choose on which charity to bestow his gift. The freedom to choose the size (and even the form) of the gift. The freedom to choose whom his gift will benefit.

Another thing stolen by the state in its pursuit of utopia (and power over people) is the benefits that accrue from true charity: the personal growth that comes from giving of one's own volition. It also steals the ability to give, since what is left after the extortionists have gone their way is often not sufficient for personal charity.

And, perhaps even more destructive is the fact that "the poor" develop an entitlement mentality and those whose resources were confiscated begin to resent them. This builds a class warfare posture on both sides ("they won't give us enough" vs. "there is no end to their demands"). Those whose means are taken by force lose a part of their humanity

[frankenstein]

In the case of government

mark 12:17

[selek]

Aha! So the real motivation behind this "poor and needy" business slips out! The Mormon church is, in fact, engaged in an act of sedition against the government. By encouraging its members to care for the less fortunate, the church is robbing virtuous humanitarian leaders, like Rod Blagojevich and John Edwards, of their rightful constituency. It is an immutable law of nature that all good things come solely from our great and glorious federal government; to say otherwise is both heresy and treason. I can't see how the church will get away with this.

(okay, I had to put this one over the top since no one noticed the sarcasm in my earlier posts, which is really disturbing.)

Thanks, MM.

I needed that one.

Remind me to take back some of the mean things I've been doing to your effigy.

[LeSellers]

mark 12:17

One of the most misunderstood and abused passages in all of scripture.

By many interpretations, it means that government can do anything and no Christian can do or say anything about it. After all, by those lights, everything that "Caesar" claims to be "his", mirabile dictu, is Caesars'.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

you could always kick against section 58:21

[LeSellers]

you could always kick against section 58:21

Which has nothing at all to do with trying to stop an insidious law's becoming reality. The destruction of freedom in not anything any self-respecting person should countenance.

Lehi

[Mortal Man]

Remind me to take back some of the mean things I've been doing to your effigy.

You have an effigy of lil' ol' me? I'm pleased and flattered.

As a token of my appreciation, you may use this photo of me to make it more lifelike.

[Mortal Man]

They are making drastic cuts in order to put more people on Medicare. I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks burdening a system already on the brink of bankruptcy will help anyone. The Christian way is for individuals to give of their own free will. Otherwise it's not charity but extortion.

You "free will" fanatics just don't learn anything from history. In times like these we must remember the words of the great beholders of democracy:

"A democracy can only exist once the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the prudent majority should always vote for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury." -- Alexander Tytler

"The American Republic will endure, as long as politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville

[LeSellers]

You "free will" fanatics just don't learn anything from history. In times like these we must remember the word of the great beholders of democracy:

"A democracy can only exist once the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the prudent majority should always vote for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury." -- Alexander Tytler

"The American Republic will endure, as long as politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville

Hmmm.

Lehi

[JarMan]

you always have your agency, there is nothing in this life nor the government can do to take agency away from.

This barely comprehensible sentence is also possibly the most ludicrous thing ever posted on this board.

[Droopy]

Fascinating it truly is, the LDS here who are happy to treat this change as a license to transfer their personal responsibilities to do good works, give of their substance to help the poor and needy, and bear each other's burdens, to the state and are equally happy to empower the state to forcibly confiscate the fruits of the labor of other people that their moral and spiritual responsibilities may be discharged with the money, labor, and resources of others.

The very idea that a Latter Day Saint could even ask the question "Isn't this the government's job?" indicates the precipice we have already gone over in this society regarding the inspired principles of governance with which we have heretofore been blessed through the words of the Declaration and the laws of the Constitution.

We are now rejecting them and turning from them, and I would, as a Latter Day Saint, be very, very careful in following the world away from the Iron Rod down these various"strange roads".

Is charity the responsibility of the state? Absolutely not, and for a plethora of reasons, not the least of which is that anything the state does begins, or eventually becomes, politicized and politically motivated. Neither the motivations nor the incentives that obtain for the political class (and especially a ensconced political class of near permanent incumbents who have developed a taste for the power, control, and political self aggrandizement that comes with the dispensing of "good works" and charity to "the poor") are not those that animate the kind of charity as taught in the scriptures, nor is transferring our personal duty and responsibility to care for the poor among us in a personal manner as we involve ourselves in the lives of others on a personal level to bless and lift, transferable to distant bureaucrats and agencies who's motives are Caesar's, not Christ's.

Nor is it, moral and spiritual considerations having been taken into account, either rational or moral to destroy through massive taxation the very economic activity that is the source of alms and charity in the first place.

I notice that one here mentions, yet again, the concept of "redistribution of wealth" in relation to charity, as if a punitive expedition against work, savings, thrift, investment, and economic prosperity is somehow connected pragmatically or morally to helping the poor among us.

Is it really necessary each and every time this issue arises to invoke the demon of class envy and ressentment against those who have succeeded materially in life through hard work, preparation, and productive activity, even as we claim to be giving our alms out of love?

Must charity always be paired with a dyspeptic, churlish animosity toward those who produce jobs, wealth, opportunity, and the very preconditions for higher livings standards and escape from the bondage of poverty?

In any case, in a more practical vein, we already know that turning over charity to Caesar is both an exercise in futility as well as a moral and cultural disaster. The "Great Society" never succeeded in alleviating poverty, but it did destroy the black inner city family, turn poor ghettos into poor, violent, chaotic enclaves of social pathology, and trap otherwise productive human beings in intergenerational poverty while supporting the very values and mental attitudes that encourage and maintain poverty.

Please read Marvin Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion and the all important Losing Ground, by Charles Murray, before pontificating any further about the state's "responsibility" for charity (and then, perhaps, show me where this "responsibility" occurs in the Constitution).

[Droopy]

By many interpretations, it means that government can do anything and no Christian can do or say anything about it. After all, by those lights, everything that "Caesar" claims to be "his", mirabile dictu, is Caesars'.

What we really have here, when all is said and done, among Mormons who invest themselves in a leftist worldview, just as much as among non-members, is statolatry, which is, of course, a form of idolatry that displaces Jesus Christ from the center of our lives for another god.

The state here actually becomes the vicarious doer of the good works we ourselves have been commanded to do, and takes by force this world's goods from others to do it.

Yes, behold the gospel in action.

[Droopy]

Actually medicare is being expanded to help even more; which is truely the christian way;

Besides government funded medical care having nothing whatever to do with Christianity, Medicare is set to utterly self destruct beginning around 2022 or so (along with Social Security), and take much of the economy with it (which will not exist in any substantive form in any case at that point. The 12,000,000,000,000 bailout package over ten years, Cap and Trade, or the EPA's new CO2 regulations can easily, each in its own right, for all intents and purposes destroy the American economy long before that time).

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are unsustainable no matter what is done to them (except for privatization and reintroducing free market dynamics back into the medical system. But that, well, you know, that empowers individuals to make their own decisions for their own lives, and, well, you know, we just can't have that now, can we? I mean,without politicians to make these kinds of decisions for us, where would we be?)

[thesometimesaint]

Droopy:

I have successfully done both for many years. I gratefully pay my tithes and offering, and at the same time pay my taxes. At least with my taxes I can drive on the roads, and have all the advantages of living in a modern industrial society. I'm not bragging I am well blessed, and pray to continue to be so.

[LeSellers]

At least with my taxes I can drive on the roads, and have all the advantages of living in a modern industrial society.

This statement only makes sense if one accepts the premise that, without taxes, there would be no roads and there would not be a "modern industrial society". Both assumptions are false.

Actually, taxes make the roads less useful and the society less beneficial than they would be absent taxes because taxation arbitrarily takes resources away from people so they cannot tell the would-be providers of those benefits how much is truly needed in either category.

It further fouls up the ability of those who would provide roads and a modern industrial society to judge when and where to provide them. A fine example of such idiocy by government is the infamous Alaskan "bridge to nowhere": no one needed it (there was an adequate ferry), no one wanted it (except a senator whose power could be enhanced thereby), and no one would have paid a nickle for it unless the taxpayers of Florida were coerced into funding it by a host of men in fancy hats with badges and guns.

With private charity, we have a perfect gauge of how much people are willing to give, how many people should be helped, and how they should be helped.

When government steps in, the numbers of people needing help rises dramatically, the amount they should receive is reduced to a mathematical calculation, and there is no effective incentive for them to do anything but continue to receive it. Why, because when one robs Peter to pay Paul, one can always count on Paul's political support. If the politician makes Peter think he'd doing a good thng, he can even count on Peter's support. The truth is, however, that government "charity" is not charity at all, but coercion and slavery.

And, as I said earlier, both the giver and the recipient are diminished as human beings, while with private charity, both are improved.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Then it should be painless for you to move to where there are no taxes, and enjoy all those "benefits".

[frankenstein]

With private charity, we have a perfect gauge of how much people are willing to give, how many people should be helped, and how they should be helped.

And how does a charity determine "how many should be helped" more than likely "the amount they should receive is reduced to a mathematical calculation"

thesometimessaint....my thoughts exactly.