Mormon President Of The "Free" World? Would It Be Paradise?

[ozpoof]

Others have addressed some of your inaccurate information about the Church's assistance outreach, so I will confine myself to the heirarchy of seeking assistance you mention.

It is almost a universal Church policy to ask members in need to address those needs first from their own capabilities, and when these are inadequate, to go in turn to family, both immediate and extended, then other organizations, such as those which are organized specifically for the purpose (such as the Red Cross), including governmental organizations whose very purpose is to provide assistance, and then and ony then to ask the Church for help. The policy isn't strictly enforced. Individual Bishops, for example, can and often do decide to just help a member in need whose family won't or can't help, for instance. Without requring the person to check other resources first.

But I noticed earlier that you almost proudly crowed about the superiority of your Ozzy system of tax-supported charities, as compared to US attitudes about independence and self-reliance. So why are you suddenly complaining about a policy that asks people to check to see what the government can do for them before asking the Church for help? You can't have it both ways. Pick one.

As far as that goes, I suppose you are aware that the Church's resources are nowhere near as deep as a governments (at least partly because the government can raise taxes to unconcionable levels, where the Church is restsricted to asking for a very voluntary 10%). What makes more sense? For the church with its limited resources to try to meet all the needs of all its members in a disaster, or to ask the members to seek assistance first from those who have a blood-relationship, then from the organizations with very deep pockets, and when these prove inadequate come to the Church? I don't know about you, but I would guess that in the first event the Church would run out of resources right quickly and be unable to help those whose families couldn't help, and whom the Red Cross and the Department of Governmental Charity both told to go suck an egg. Want to bet that those stake members disappointed at the Church's reaction would be REALLY ticked of then?

The thing is, in a disaster, you get help any way you can. Don't turn your nose up if the help happens to be the Salvation Army or the local Anglican congregation.

At this point I don't really care what church policy is, or how much money they have pledged to Australian members. They can pledge 100 billion and have the policy that the priesthood zaps the house back to how it was before the disaster. That's not going to happen. So far the church has been very conspicuous by their absence.

I'm on the ground here, and I talk to members who are impacted. As members of the Church, I can tell you they feel (rightly so) that the church THEY BELONG TO AND SUPPORT FINANCIALLY should help them in times of real need - i.e. when they have had their homes destroyed and have nowhere to live. Isn't that a reasonable expectation? A lot of these people feel embarrassed to ask for help from the Salvation Army, Islamic groups, Buddhists and other religious groups. They have their own members but not only look after those people, they help people from other religions - such as Mormons. The LDS church seems to stand back and wait to see how much their members can squeeze out of other religions before stepping in, if ever (no one I speak to from the church who needs help has received any as of this date).

Really, this is nothing short of shameful. The church should be helping everyone they can who needs help, and not just tithepayers or even just members. That's what these other groups do. Tzu Chi - 5 million members worldwide, no tithing, yet they handed out blankets, food, first aid kits, and $500 for each family member who lost their homes. This help was ESSENTIAL for some people just after the disaster. Why doesn't the Church do that? They are called the church of Jesus Christ yet those representing Buddha seem to act more Christlike!

I'm afraid it seems the Church has it both ways Stargazer. If the church (which is a US church based in the most right-wing state) believes in self reliance, why are they collecting welfare, fast offering and missionary fund? The reason members here expect some help is because they know how much money they give to the church, yet it is religious groups that they don't give offerings to that are the ones who come through when they need them. Telling members of the church to go ask other religions for help? How is that self reliance???? These people have invested their lives and wealth in the church. They would be more self reliant if they had given 10% to the Salvation Army all these years so when they need them they can ask for help with some self worth, knowing they had contributed to the effort.

Really, there is no excuse for this. Many lifelong church members are angry. You don't see the Salvation Army creating real-estate arms of their religion and building multi billion dollar malls.

[ozpoof]

I recognize that if we are to live in a society where we don't allow people to die in the streets of starvation, the government can (as a last resort) try and solve the problem through forceful redistribution of people's money. I agree that the government does many things for the public good with tax money.

I just don't think it's "Christ-like" or "charity" or any sort of benevolence.

If we're walking down the street and a homeless man asks us for money for lunch and I take out my wallet and give him $5, that's charity. But if instead I reach over and forcefully take your wallet from you and remove $10 and give it to the man, what is that?

Nations operate this way. As an American, if your government takes taxpayers funds and uses it to help the poor in other countries, you receive some goodwill - the American people have offered charity. Likewise, and especially with democratically elected governments such as your own, if your government attacks a sovereign nation that has not attacked you first or given your government legitimate cause to attack preemptively, you as an American will receive some negative feelings from the world community. Offering aid as a nation is Christlike, and the government has to fund this aid somehow. Offering aid to the sick is Christlike. Those who accept this and give willingly are Christlike. Those who fight against plans to help the sick are not.

[ozpoof]

Why do people who are about to say something offensive often begin their remarks by saying “no offense?”

CFR, that the LDS Church gave not one cent to disaster relief or recovery in Australia.

One of the major challenges faced by disaster response workers is rumor control. Such rumors are typically based on limited evidence (in your case, a conversation with one member) and limited understanding of what is going on behind the scenes.

Another major challenge is to try to coordinate the efforts of the various organizations that are trying to help. Not only is duplication of effort a concern, but sometimes without coordination, one organizations may inadvertently undercut the efforts being made by another. Rumors like “the LDS church gave not one cent” sow mistrust and divisiveness -- the last thing that is needed during a disaster.

If confined to this message board, such a rumor probably does little harm, beyond ruffling a few feathers for a few days. Unfortunately, to the extent that such rumors are circulated in Australia, they could adversely affect the response to your next disaster. After all, who wants to work with an organization whose “reputation does not demand respect?”

I live in Australia. I live in a community impacted by floods. I live with Mormons. I talk to Mormons who were impacted by the floods. This is no rumor.

"[A]dversely affect the response to your next disaster"? IS there a worse response than taking 10% from the homeless and giving nothing back????????

[ozpoof]

Unlike so many, Americans don't like to be told what to do, and how to do it. It is one reason our nation was founded. Americans do however give, and give generously. More so than many people in nations who seem to think that it is their governments job to take care of the poor, so those compliant people aleviate themeselves of responsibility to care for the poor and wait for the government to do something.

I would suggest a better understanding of the overall American psyche would help avoid some of the complications that come when more compliant peoples in other nations wonder why our nation doesn't necessariy follow in lockstep with US government bureaucracy. We Americans (and as an immigrant I count myself American), like to make our own decisions and help in the way we think is best. One reason I enjoy seeing the UN in New York is because it helps remind us of how wasteful being a "compliant" nation to a government is. The UN cannot even begin to tally its waste due to corruption, featherbedding (easy jobs for relatives and friends) and wasteful misappropriation of funds to almost criminal levels. Many Americans see this and find they prefer donating to something that is more efficient and does greater good. And of course hold the charity accountable if it does not do much good, something almost impossible to do with "government" programs.

The US uses the UN all the time to get what it wants. They use it to attempt to gain legitimacy for preemptive attacks of other nations. They veto other motions. Yet the US owes billions to the UN. Either the US supports the UN or they don't. If they do, they should pay their dues like other nations do.

I believe more and more people worldwide are seeing the effects of the American psyche on their own nations.

[ozpoof]

Spot on, Lehi. Are you sure about the percentage though? I would have thought the overhead was a little lower -- not even the government could be that brazen, could it?

What about this analogy? You see a man with a cut and give him a $1 packet of ban-aids. That's charity.

The man pays $5 a year to a health insurer and doesn't claim for 10 years - total $50. He cuts his hand and needs a bandaid. He is charged $30 for a packet of bandaids by a clinic. The insurer disputes this amount and won't pay. The man must sell his belongings to pay for the $30 packet of bandaids. That's the US system.

Everyone pays 1cent towards health care. Whenever anyone cuts their hand, they immediately get a bandaid costing 75cents because the government has buying power. No one dies from infection in the street of has to sell anything to fund their own health care. That's every other first world nation.

[Jeff K.]

I know of families, including my own, who got no help at all from the church. Church members helped clean up, but the church kept their distance.

I cannot speak as to why your family was not helped. It is not the norm for the church to avoid helping families, the opposite tends to be true. All I know is that from both anecdotal information and news stories as to what the church did in New Zealand see atypical of what was reported by independent sources.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 12 June 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:

Unlike so many, Americans don't like to be told what to do, and how to do it. It is one reason our nation was founded. Americans do however give, and give generously. More so than many people in nations who seem to think that it is their governments job to take care of the poor, so those compliant people aleviate themeselves of responsibility to care for the poor and wait for the government to do something.

I would suggest a better understanding of the overall American psyche would help avoid some of the complications that come when more compliant peoples in other nations wonder why our nation doesn't necessariy follow in lockstep with US government bureaucracy. We Americans (and as an immigrant I count myself American), like to make our own decisions and help in the way we think is best. One reason I enjoy seeing the UN in New York is because it helps remind us of how wasteful being a "compliant" nation to a government is. The UN cannot even begin to tally its waste due to corruption, featherbedding (easy jobs for relatives and friends) and wasteful misappropriation of funds to almost criminal levels. Many Americans see this and find they prefer donating to something that is more efficient and does greater good. And of course hold the charity accountable if it does not do much good, something almost impossible to do with "government" programs.

The US uses the UN all the time to get what it wants. They use it to attempt to gain legitimacy for preemptive attacks of other nations. They veto other motions. Yet the US owes billions to the UN. Either the US supports the UN or they don't. If they do, they should pay their dues like other nations do.

I believe more and more people worldwide are seeing the effects of the American psyche on their own nations.

Consider that any country including China and Russia at any time can veto a process in the security council. So tell us how the US "uses" the UN when it can only do so with the cooperation of its two strongest rivals? Having worked with the UN, I do not mind being in arrears to a corrupt organizations whose majority members tend to be dictators from various oppressive regimes. Libya leading the UN human rights council was just one indication of the UN role. Would you pay for an organization that has an international child prostitution organization in its mist, allows oppressive dictators to mandate human rights, and stands by while Herzogovina and other areas fall into genocidal warfare. Maybe you think that is money well spent, I have a distinct view on the matter.

Regarding the American "psyche", as an immigrant to this nation, its psyche tends to be more of seeking independence from the state, perhaps from your point of view, greater dependence upon the state is the desired path, but in this nation the state is viewed with suspicion, and disdain because it cannot and should not provide all for all.

[Deborah]

Christchurch is in New Zealand. I live in Australia.

You are right. Thanks for the correction.

Nevertheless, the point is the church is almost always the first to offer aid to those in such situations. And yes as others have pointed out the church does coordinate with other groups so as to not duplicate efforts and be able to assist in other areas.

I don't know the specific circumstances of what you speak, but likely there are things going on you know nothing about. I would like to know both sides before making any response to that.

[Calm]

Still waiting for monetary aid..................

So the issue is that the Church isn't handing out cash directly to those who you believe need it?

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Prove to me that the Church has no overhead. You can't use ANY Church or Church members statements.

[LeSellers]

Prove to me that the Church has no overhead. You can't use ANY Church or Church members statements.

The "Church" has lots of overhead. It's the Church's welfare programs that have virtually none.

Lehi

[ELF1024]

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

Mormon President, Catholic President, Evangelical President, we're all still men and will things make a horrible mess of things.

There are no more drawbacks to having an LDS President to one of any other faith.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Prove it. But you can't use any Church produced statements or figures, and because you are a Mormon your opinions can't be trusted. Do you not see the bind that such a CFR produces?

[Avatar4321]

No man aside from Jesus Christ Himself could do such a thing.

People need to stop presuming that our elected officials determine our futures. They don't. We do. If we work at making this world a paradise in our individual lives and our families, and from then on, and firmly trust in the help of Divine Providence, we will see Zion established with power.

If we expect some elected politician, no matter what faith, to solve all our problems and make this world a paradise, we are seriously deluding ourselves.

[Jeff K.]

I don't know, elected officials seem pretty good at ruining futures and yes, they tend to help very little.

[ozpoof]

Consider that any country including China and Russia at any time can veto a process in the security council. So tell us how the US "uses" the UN when it can only do so with the cooperation of its two strongest rivals? Having worked with the UN, I do not mind being in arrears to a corrupt organizations whose majority members tend to be dictators from various oppressive regimes. Libya leading the UN human rights council was just one indication of the UN role. Would you pay for an organization that has an international child prostitution organization in its mist, allows oppressive dictators to mandate human rights, and stands by while Herzogovina and other areas fall into genocidal warfare. Maybe you think that is money well spent, I have a distinct view on the matter.

Regarding the American "psyche", as an immigrant to this nation, its psyche tends to be more of seeking independence from the state, perhaps from your point of view, greater dependence upon the state is the desired path, but in this nation the state is viewed with suspicion, and disdain because it cannot and should not provide all for all.

The US pushes resolutions it wishes to use to legitimatize its actions, but when the rest of the word votes against these resolutions the US does what it want anyway. So the US goes through the motions in the UN (ie "uses" the UN), for the appearance of world support. So pay your dues. If the US doesn't believe in the UN, get out of it.

I really think the US has zero credibility when it comes to opposing dictatorships. The US is notorious for installing dictatorial puppets in sovereign countries, and meddling with the democratically elected governments of other nations, even so-called allies such as Australia have seen US meddling in our politics. The US props up the Saudi dictatorship at the expense of the women of that country who are beaten and stoned in public. I guess the American stance on dictatorships changes depending on weather they are asked to pay UN dues or keep an oil supplier happy. This very issue is one reason why there is an Islamic opposition to US presence in the Middle East. There is no US consistency or fairness.

Stands by during genocide? Tell me, why does the US stand by and allow genocide wherever there is no oil or other resources such as Rwanda or Sudan? Everything you accuse the UN of, the US is guilty of, however, the UN doesn't float mines into Nicaraguan harbors, attack nations for no reason (other than economic) install puppet regimes in the Americas, and other atrocities.

Back to the subject, I'm not sure a Mormon president would be less hypocritical or inconsistent.

[ozpoof]

So the issue is that the Church isn't handing out cash directly to those who you believe need it?

No, the issue is that the church has done NOTHING for people that under any definition of "needy" require help.

[Deborah]

No, the issue is that the church has done NOTHING for people that under any definition of "needy" require help.

And I think you don't know what you are talking about. As I said previously you don't know the whole story and I doubt that your "friends" are telling the whole story. The church does not as a rule give cash handouts. They give goods and services and sometimes will pay bills. Sometimes people don't want this they want money instead. That isn't how it works.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Not unless he was Satan, and took away everybody's free agency!

Actually a good answer.

[Sleeper Cell]

I live in Australia. I live in a community impacted by floods. I live with Mormons. I talk to Mormons who were impacted by the floods. This is no rumor.

Most rumors that circulate in the aftermath of a disaster are started by people who live in the impacted area and who have talked to a few other victims.

You did not answer my CFR. You claimed that:

During and after recent natural disasters in Australia, Buddhist groups, Muslim charities and the Salvation Army offered food, clothing, goods, appliances, even cash … The LDS church gave not one cent … “

[emphasis added]

Had you said that the LDS church gave not one cent directly to the victims, your response (that the church did not give any aid to the Mormons you talked to) might have some (limited) merit. In that case, I would have accepted your limited hearsay evidence as an answer to my CFR. But that is not what you said. You said that the church didn’t give any aid, whatsoever. Even if it were true that the church did not contribute one cent directly to disaster victims, you have provided absolutely no evidence that the church did not funnel contributions through other disaster relief organizations.

This is not an uncommon practice in the disaster response community. As others have pointed out, the LDS church has, on other occasions, funneled substantial disaster relief aid through Catholic Relief, the Salvation Army, and similar organizations. In areas where “Mormons aren‘t common“ (as you put it) the quickest way for the church “to do the greatest good for the greatest number” is often to funnel its disaster aid through the existing infrastructure of more established charitable groups.

Again, CFR, that the LDS Church gave not one cent to disaster relief or recovery in Australia.

"? IS there a worse response than taking 10% from the homeless and giving nothing back????????

Bearing false witness comes to mind.

[Jeff K.]

The US pushes resolutions it wishes to use to legitimatize its actions, but when the rest of the word votes against these resolutions the US does what it want anyway. So the US goes through the motions in the UN (ie "uses" the UN), for the appearance of world support. So pay your dues. If the US doesn't believe in the UN, get out of it.

I really think the US has zero credibility when it comes to opposing dictatorships. The US is notorious for installing dictatorial puppets in sovereign countries, and meddling with the democratically elected governments of other nations, even so-called allies such as Australia have seen US meddling in our politics. The US props up the Saudi dictatorship at the expense of the women of that country who are beaten and stoned in public. I guess the American stance on dictatorships changes depending on weather they are asked to pay UN dues or keep an oil supplier happy. This very issue is one reason why there is an Islamic opposition to US presence in the Middle East. There is no US consistency or fairness.

Stands by during genocide? Tell me, why does the US stand by and allow genocide wherever there is no oil or other resources such as Rwanda or Sudan? Everything you accuse the UN of, the US is guilty of, however, the UN doesn't float mines into Nicaraguan harbors, attack nations for no reason (other than economic) install puppet regimes in the Americas, and other atrocities.

Back to the subject, I'm not sure a Mormon president would be less hypocritical or inconsistent.

I am sure your opinion of the US is as factually based as your opinion that the church sent no aid to New Zealand during the earthquake crisis.

Let us for a moment deal in the realpolitik..... I realize as a small country, your part in the area of world affairs is kept as a bit part player. If the world were a chess game, your nation based on its strategic importance and the impact it has upon the world economy would be that of well, an observer in a lawnchair outside the building on a hill with binoculars. As such, from such a distant and strategic vantage point, one might miss certain contexts going on inside the building. Things like the Cold War and the movement of power, the activity of two super powers (one of which expelled a great deal of its power and reserves protecting Europe, though, like I said, from your nations vantage point, it seems a distant threat. Errors, mistakes, wrong decisions, all of these play a part in that chess game. The US by its nature until WWII was mostly isolationist with very few incursions abroad. Post WWII at the behest of the west it certainly did become much more active. And yes, actions in various countries did indeed create the rise of horrible people. The one sided accusation though shows a certain myopia to the opponent in the chess match. The Soviet Union which imprisoned entire nations, while also installing dictators. My youth in Germany was impacted by the Baader Meinhof Gang. Dilattante terrorists who found easy refuge in East Germany, the IRA in Northern Ireland which did not come to the peace tables until the money dried up, not from Boston and New York, but from the former Soviet Union.

I would like to know the number of oil wells that were saved in Bosnia/Herzogovinia where the US entered unilaterally while Mulsims were being massacred? There are many more such areas where the UN simply did nothing while the US did something.

But from your hillside, far away from the movement, power, and international game of chess during the cold war, it is easy to condemn mistakes made, to question motivations, to even denigrate people.

I have played rugby with a group of Samoans. Great people, I loved the game, as such I am not a small man in stature. You remind of the unfortunate clueless spectator, doesn't know the rules, isn't sure what the outcome is, has not really sacrificed to put himself in shape for the game, and has never ever picked up the ball run with it. But who somehow seems to think he can coach a team. The Samoans just smiled and shook their head.

Enjoy your corner of the world, it is a nice and beautiful place. Great for making films like Xena, or Hercules, or Lord of the Rings. Something to be proud of really. You don't have to thank us for making such a possibility for you, Lord of the Rings is all the thanks we need. Good on ya mate!

[Jeff K.]

So are you from Australia or New Zealand? If it is Australia, well, I guess thanks for Mel Gibson maybe? Too bad you lose out on the Xena and Hercules stuff. Oh well.

[Deborah]

Bearing false witness comes to mind.

Not only that if people were paying their tithing they were likely not homeless. Now if they became homeless after the disaster, I'm not sure what Ozzie expects the church to do. There are a lot of homeless people following a disaster and that's why shelters are set up and there are programs set up to meet immediate needs. In many areas church buildings have been opened up to shelter the displaced. Tithing is not like paying into insurance where you get money back when disaster hits. It is an act of faith in following the commandment of the Lord. I doubt that the true tithe payers are complaining about this as Oz reports.

[ozpoof]

And I think you don't know what you are talking about. As I said previously you don't know the whole story and I doubt that your "friends" are telling the whole story. The church does not as a rule give cash handouts. They give goods and services and sometimes will pay bills. Sometimes people don't want this they want money instead. That isn't how it works.

So you're telling me the Mormon families I talk to, and my parents, are all lying, and they have received help? Please. That's offensive. If you re-read my posts I am talking about ANY help from the official church. As of today it has been several months.

Please don't let your blind faith in the church leadership lead you to accusing myself and others I speak to of being deceptive. Quite frankly I doubt you could ever see the church leadership as doing anything less than a Godlike, perfect job at everything. You are more willing to accuse people who have lost everything of lying than to believe anything you might see as showing the church as less than generous or Heaven on Earth.

There's not much point in having a discussion when you have already formed your opinion for ALL possible statements made here - i.e. the Church leaders are infallible, the Church can never do any wrong, and has never harmed anyone.

[ozpoof]

Most rumors that circulate in the aftermath of a disaster are started by people who live in the impacted area and who have talked to a few other victims.

Had you said that the LDS church gave not one cent directly to the victims, your response (that the church did not give any aid to the Mormons you talked to) might have some (limited) merit. In that case, I would have accepted your limited hearsay evidence as an answer to my CFR. But that is not what you said. You said that the church didn’t give any aid, whatsoever. Even if it were true that the church did not contribute one cent directly to disaster victims, you have provided absolutely no evidence that the church did not funnel contributions through other disaster relief organizations.

This is not an uncommon practice in the disaster response community. As others have pointed out, the LDS church has, on other occasions, funneled substantial disaster relief aid through Catholic Relief, the Salvation Army, and similar organizations. In areas where “Mormons aren‘t common“ (as you put it) the quickest way for the church “to do the greatest good for the greatest number” is often to funnel its disaster aid through the existing infrastructure of more established charitable groups.

Again, CFR, that the LDS Church gave not one cent to disaster relief or recovery in Australia.

CFR your assertion that the church funnels money through other religious groups. I can't see how you can since the US church does not show its accounts. Please provide statements from church accounts that show exactly how much funds the LDS church gives to the poor and needy, as well as those impacted by disasters. It's easier to prove a positive than what you're asking me to do.

If the church gave anything to disaster relief they would be crowing about it in the Australasian liftout of the Ensign. They mentioned that some members helped clean up. That's NOT "The" Church, and under your own standards is hearsay anyway.

The LDS church has had zero presence on the ground in the area where the floods hit. I can tell you that for a fact since the area where I live was the hardest hit. The Catholics haven't either. Help came from the Salvation Army, Tzu Chi Buddhists, a Muslim charity, and a few local independent Christian Churches. Could you provide me with the evidence that the Church gave these groups funding to distribute?

Even if the Church funneled money through these groups, they did not visit ANY of the LDS 7 families effected in my neighbourhood to see how they had come through. I can't see how you think this is OK.

Bearing false witness? Calling me a liar isn't helping. Glass houses.