Mocking The Poor

[mercyngrace]

I was doing some scripture study in Proverbs and came across an interesting correlation made by the footnotes so I thought I's post it for opinions.

 

Here's what I read in Proverbs 17:5:

 5 Whoso ^amocketh the ^bpoor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is ^cglad at calamities shall not be unpunished.

 

 

Clicking the link to footnote a led to Mosiah 4:

16  And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17  Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18  But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

 

 

Is it "mocking" the poor to deny the beggar because he got himself into his own awful circumstance?

 

Is it "mocking" the spiritually poor when we withhold aid because they are making sinful choices or living lives of which we disapprove?

 

Over the last couple of years, I've had an ongoing conversation with a friend whose wayward son frequently needs financial help. She is inclined to withhold assistance while her husband is inclined to give much more freely. Which approach is consistent with scripture? Should they give him nothing? Should they give only enough to sustain life so that he suffers and perhaps learns the consequences of his actions? Should they provide abundant aid even though it is unmerited/unearned simply because he is their son and they love him?

 

What say ye all?

[bluebell]

I worked a bit with the homeless shelter and the salvation army in Billings MT.  Without exception, they always counseled not to give 'beggars' money.  They instructed to provide food if possible, and to provide a list of services that were available to the homeless and downtrodden in the city.  They suggested that if someone really wanted to help the poor, they would volunteer with those services, since they actually tried to help people.

 

Money never really helped them, but it was the easiest thing to do so a lot of people did it, just so they didn't feel guilty.  At that point, people aren't serving the poor, they are just serving themselves.

 

So, i think that it is often necessary to without monetary aid, and attempt to give different kinds of aid instead.  I think that giving money just to fulfill a sense of obligation probably causes more harm than good.

 

As to the situation with your friend, i obviously don't have enough information to really judge what that family should be doing.  What i do believe, in general, is that anything that enables someone to continue to make bad choices and ruin their lives is the wrong thing to do.  Our goal should be to help the person actually get better, not to help ourselves feel less guilty or uncomfortable.

 

If giving money and help freely is helping the financially needy son to stay needy, subsidizing a lifestyle that is harmful, and keeping the son from learning what he needs to learn to become productive, then I believe the father is ultimately doing his son a huge disservice.  If the mother is withholding help just because she doesn't like that he's left the church, then she probably is the one in the wrong.

[rpn]

If you are asking about your friend's situation, parents often enable dysfunctional behavior by providing financial support, preventing the child from hitting bottom so they can decide to change choices.   When you are dealing with wayward children, you really need to thoroughly learn about co-dependency (people find the book Co-dependency no more useful, and http://www.soulselfhelp.on.ca/coda.html) and enabling and make decisions free of those issues, that you then consult the Lord to confirm (because IME, sometimes He'll tell you to do it anyway for reasons you don't understand).   And the help should almost always be something other than money (or money paid directly to someone on wayward person's behalf).

 

If you are asking about mocking the poor generally by refusing to enable, I would not agree with that.   What I would agree is that generous Fast Offerings, and general contributions to professional services for the needy, and buying someone's groceries when you are inspired to do so are required.  Etc.

 

And I would agree that much of the political discourse about poverty in the United States is mocking the poor (both on the side that wants to make people dependent on government and/or thinks that more efficiency and/or accountability is insulting; and the side that acts like poverty is the fault of the poor automatically and every time).

[why me]

I think that we mock the poor when we do not support a system that would limit poverty. Rather, we seem to have a system where poverty becomes a standard condition for many people in the world. And it seems that this same system creates the ways and means not just to become rich but also poor.

 

I think that this is how the poor are mocked by not providing a foundation for a secure life. Also we mock the poor through food handouts, shelters, free clothing etc. We need an economic system were such things would be non-existent because people would have decent wage, a secure workplace, a secure home and have the availability to live life as a human being.

 

Marx quickly recognized that capitalism would institutionalize social and economic instability. The system's inherent hunger for new markets, new consumers, new and cheaper methods of production in order to increase the flow of capital would result in a destructive system of boom and bust. After each cataclysm, he predicted, the number of capitalists at the top of the pyramid would be smaller, while the base of disaffected workers grew. Gradually even the middle class would be included.

 

Marx believed that industrial capitalism had also created a new system of repression and exploitation. Politically and socially men were no more equal under this new order than they had been under a monarchy. Rights belonged to those with money and property; those with only a strong back or skilled hands could not even vote. Financially, those filling the ranks of the industrial workforce were arguably worse off.

 

There was evidence aplenty to support Marx's assessment. He lived in London, the richest city in the world. And yet as great as was its wealth, much greater was its poverty. In Marx's neighborhood, some people rented a space in a bed and called it comfort. Others paid for a few inches on a stairwell and called it home. Marx summed up the situation saying, "There must be something rotten in the very core of a social system which increases its wealth without diminishing its misery."

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/29/opinion/gabriel-karl-marx/

 

The above is something to think about when we discuss the poor and what exactly mocks them.

[CV75]

What say ye all?

I think it is the attitude of unrighteous judgment (as seen in verse 17)--which is also the source of mocking--that we need to remove from ourselves, and allow us to be more inclined toward charity (the pure love of Christ). This is why we are asked to repent of it in verse 18.

Addressing the bolded words in verse 16 for example, if we have the Holy Spirit to guide us, we can discern who stands in need of our succor, administer according to that need; discern how to successfully meet petition according to the Lord’s will; and save the Lord’s children in His way.

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

I’m not sure we can judge which one (the mother or the father) is more inclined to listen and hearken to the Spirit, which in my mind is what would be consistent with scripture. Actually acing on the promptings of the Spirit is even more consistent with scripture. Obviously, the companionship of the Holy Ghost makes us more inclined to seek the welfare of others for the most charitable reason, while giving us the wisdom to accomplish that in the best way possible under the circumstances.

If left to themselves, as a couple they can strike a balance or take turns or compromise between their personal inclinations and share the burden of carrying out any of the various the options you provided in a give-and-take, trial and error manner. I think the key to how they work together in doing the right thing is to avoid contention.

Edited January 6, 2014 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

I was doing some scripture study in Proverbs and came across an interesting correlation made by the footnotes so I thought I's post it for opinions.

 

Here's what I read in Proverbs 17:5:

 

Clicking the link to footnote a led to Mosiah 4:

 

Is it "mocking" the poor to deny the beggar because he got himself into his own awful circumstance?

 

Is it "mocking" the spiritually poor when we withhold aid because they are making sinful choices or living lives of which we disapprove?

 

Over the last couple of years, I've had an ongoing conversation with a friend whose wayward son frequently needs financial help. She is inclined to withhold assistance while her husband is inclined to give much more freely. Which approach is consistent with scripture? Should they give him nothing? Should they give only enough to sustain life so that he suffers and perhaps learns the consequences of his actions? Should they provide abundant aid even though it is unmerited/unearned simply because he is their son and they love him?

 

What say ye all?

 

Yes.

 

Yes

 

The husband.

 

No.

 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

Are we not all beggars before the Lord?

[Duncan]

Poverty isn't an easy issue to solve. I recall as a missionary visiting a guy who lived in an decrepit apartment building and who was a Vietnam vet and had some facial scars as a result. Anyways, he said since he had been home had had trouble getting jobs and keeping them. he worked as a security guard at a bank or something and it got robbed and he lost most of his teeth and he had ancient glasses. Seemed otherwise a decent enough fellow. We took a guy in the ward, who was also a Vietnam vet and he was buko, buko wealthy, thinking they would have something to talk about and I dunno, maybe give the guy some hope? we never said that or anything as I recall. Anyways we showed to his apartment and the brother from the ward wouldn't go in with us, he said he had other things to do or something and we were like he is totally harmless!!! nothing bad will happen!! but to no avail. Anyways, after that experience I have always wondered what ever happened to him and how his situation is and the wealthy brother can do you know what with all his stuff, rich twit!!!! I resolved then that if I ever came into cash I would help out where I could, like in this case buy the guy new glasses, get some groceries and a new suit so he can get himself out of his situation and get a better job.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Duncan

[thesometimesaint]

[Duncan]

 

 

love x 34 million!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Is it "mocking" the poor to deny the beggar because he got himself into his own awful circumstance?

 

Is it "mocking" the spiritually poor when we withhold aid because they are making sinful choices or living lives of which we disapprove?

 

Over the last couple of years, I've had an ongoing conversation with a friend whose wayward son frequently needs financial help. She is inclined to withhold assistance while her husband is inclined to give much more freely. Which approach is consistent with scripture? Should they give him nothing? Should they give only enough to sustain life so that he suffers and perhaps learns the consequences of his actions? Should they provide abundant aid even though it is unmerited/unearned simply because he is their son and they love him?

 

What say ye all?

No

 

No

 

Depends on the situtation. Wisdom in all things. Sometimes giving money is good because it will help them out. But if my son just played WoW all day long and never even looked for a job I would not help him out with money mabey I could help educate him. Why is money the only thing someone can give?

Enabling some one's life style in the name of "charity" is never a good thing. So I would say it depends on the situtation and what is going on. Both giving and not giving could be viewed good or bad depending on the situation. I think it rather foolish to think that what is spoken of in the scriptures regarding giving is some general "we must always give when it is asked" statement.

[MorningStar]

They should give in a way that will help him get on his feet - classes, clothing, help with resumes and cover letters, food, etc.  Unfortunately giving some people money will only allow them to harm themselves.  We couldn't give my grandpa money because he would use it to buy alcohol and he had almost died before.  Eventually he got a bartender to feel sorry for him and give him free drinks.  Then he drank himself into a coma.  He died a week later.   

 

We have given money to friends in need and gift cards for gas when they weren't able to get to church and activities.  I don't give to people who have a sense of entitlement and consistently mooch off of other people.  I had a roommate who whined about her situation and after our bishop gave her money, she bought fashion boots instead of the snow boots she needed.  She also refused to apply for any job besides the very specific position she wanted, but she was capable of doing plenty of other things.  There are always poor people to help and I have very little to give, so I reserve it for those who will appreciate it and use it responsibly. It's one thing to assume it's someone's fault because they're poor, but another to know for a fact that they have done very little to help themselves and have exhausted everyone with their requests.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Poverty isn't an easy issue to solve.

Actually it is. What isn't easy is getting every one on board to do it. We have the solutions already to do it.

[why me]

.

 

. I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)

 

A POOR; WAYFARING MAN OF GRIEF

 

1. A poor, wayfaring Man of grief
Hath often crossed me on my way,
Who sued so humbly for relief
That I could never answer nay.
I had not pow’r to ask his name,
Whereto he went, or whence he came;
Yet there was something in his eye
That won my love; I knew not why.

2. Once, when my scanty meal was spread,
He entered; not a word he spake,
Just perishing for want of bread.
I gave him all; he blessed it, brake,
And ate, but gave me part again.
Mine was an angel’s portion then,
For while I fed with eager haste,
The crust was manna to my taste.

3. I spied him where a fountain burst
Clear from the rock; his strength was gone.
The heedless water mocked his thirst;
He heard it, saw it hurrying on.
I ran and raised the suff’rer up;
Thrice from the stream he drained my cup,
Dipped and returned it running o’er;
I drank and never thirsted more.

4. ’Twas night; the floods were out; it blew
A winter hurricane aloof.
I heard his voice abroad and flew
To bid him welcome to my roof.
I warmed and clothed and cheered my guest
And laid him on my couch to rest,
Then made the earth my bed and seemed
In Eden’s garden while I dreamed.

5. Stript, wounded, beaten nigh to death,
I found him by the highway side.
I roused his pulse, brought back his breath,
Revived his spirit, and supplied
Wine, oil, refreshment—he was healed.
I had myself a wound concealed,
But from that hour forgot the smart,
And peace bound up my broken heart.

6. In pris’n I saw him next, condemned
To meet a traitor’s doom at morn.
The tide of lying tongues I stemmed,
And honored him ’mid shame and scorn.
My friendship’s utmost zeal to try,
He asked if I for him would die.
The flesh was weak; my blood ran chill,
But my free spirit cried, “I will!”

7. Then in a moment to my view
The stranger started from disguise.
The tokens in his hands I knew;
The Savior stood before mine eyes.
He spake, and my poor name he named,
“Of me thou hast not been ashamed.
These deeds shall thy memorial be;
Fear not, thou didst them unto me.”

 

Text: James Montgomery, 1771–1854

 

One of joseph smith's favorite hymns. Sung just prior to his martydom.

Edited January 6, 2014 by why me

[mercyngrace]

I appreciate all the comments thus far. I'm enjoying reading the opinions and quotes that are being shared - lots of food for thought. I have to admit I personally align myself most with TSS on this issue but I also understand the complex relationships and emotions which come into play when considering how to help someone, especially a loved one. 

 

There is a local ministry here which does extensive work with the homeless. Something the pastor who heads this group has said that really resonates with me is that homelessness isn't just a lack of money/resources, it's a lack of good relationships. He uses the example that if your buddy has a terrible fight with his wife and she kicks him out, he can drive to your house and you'll hear his sad tale, hand him a pillow and some blankets and let him sleep in the couch on your office. This may go on for days until his problems are resolved. It may go on for months until divorce divides his assets and he leases an apartment. The thing is, he's your friend (or brother or son) and you wouldn't dream of forcing him to sleep on the street. 

 

The person on the street, on the other hand, may not have healthy relationships, whether due to their own actions or due to coming from an unhealthy environment where stable, supportive relationships were not the norm.

 

Obviously, this isn't always the case. We can all point to families we consider reasonably 'normal' (if there is such a thing) where kids or even spouses have gone off the deep end and ended up in circumstances which were far less than ideal. Still, this line of thinking has been very thought-provoking to me. I have started asking myself questions like:

 

Am I creating safe, healthy environments for others by withholding judgment and condemnation even as I encourage them to follow Christ?

 

Do others know explicitly that they can depend on me when times get tough or when they need support, however they need it?

 

Are my relationships such that there is no doubt that I love people regardless of their sins or circumstances and that I will have my hand "outstretched still" for as long as it takes?

 

These are tough questions because although I've verbally expressed this kind of love to many of the people in my life, my actions have to back it up. And my virtue can't be limited to only those people I love. If I badmouth Brother Jones to my friend, I have introduced the doubt in her mind that I may judge her as well at some point. If I refuse to visit teach Sister Smith because she is so darn demanding, then my children may wonder where the limits of my charity are with respect to them. The whole line of thinking brings renewed awe for our Heavenly Father whose virtue is what inspires complete confidence in Him, regardless of how little I merit His love and blessings. 

[CV75]

The husband.

An inclination to give more freely than another person is not necessarily in line with scripture (Mosiah 4:27). There are so many things we do not know about the family dynamics or the situation at hand. As a couple, it is far better that they respect and counsel with each other in an agreed-upon approach as guided by the Spirit. It doesn’t help for others to take sides based on limited information and preferences.

President Taylor said this: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=e16ebe335dc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

"If good people are suffering for the common necessaries of life, the scriptures say, “If a man having this world’s goods see his brother in need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” [see 1 John 3:17.] And in regard to those matters, we ought to look to the wants of everybody. … Do not let us make paupers of them; but let us treat them as brethren and sisters, as good, honorable men and women; let us see that they are provided for.

"I have seen some people who would get down upon their knees and pray most heartily for God to feed the poor and clothe the naked. Now, I would never ask the Lord to do a thing that I would not do. If we have them among us, suppose we go at it and relieve them. … And if people sustain misfortune of any kind, look after them and bestow upon them those things necessary for their welfare and happiness. And God will bless us in so doing.

"I would a great deal rather that you would take, say a sack of flour, some beef, … sugar, some butter and cheese, and clothing, and fuel, and such comforts and conveniences of life, and thus try to make people feel happy, than all the prayers you could offer up to the Lord about it; and he would rather see it too. That is the proper way to do things. In receiving blessings ourselves, try to distribute them, and God will bless and guide us in the ways of peace.

"A man came to Jesus on one occasion and asked him, which was the greatest commandment. The Savior answered him: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” [Matthew 22:37–39.] Can we do that? It is sometimes hard work, is it not? We too frequently feel we would rather put two dollars in our own pocket than one in our neighbor’s do we not? We would rather have two or three cows than that our neighbor should have one? …

"Treat everybody well, and do what is right to everybody, and cultivate the spirit of kindness towards all. And when you see somebody’s cattle in somebody’s grain, feel sufficient interest in his welfare to go and drive them out; and try to promote the welfare of your neighbors and make them feel as comfortable as you can; and God will bless us, and we will bless one another."

I think this attitude strikes a good balance of what the Lord wants our inclinations should be--to neither prejudicially withold nor squander.

[CV75]

These are tough questions because although I've verbally expressed this kind of love to many of the people in my life, my actions have to back it up. And my virtue can't be limited to only those people I love. If I badmouth Brother Jones to my friend, I have introduced the doubt in her mind that I may judge her as well at some point. If I refuse to visit teach Sister Smith because she is so darn demanding, then my children may wonder where the limits of my charity are with respect to them. The whole line of thinking brings renewed awe for our Heavenly Father whose virtue is what inspires complete confidence in Him, regardless of how little I merit His love and blessings.

The chapter in the link I provided above (Teachings of President Taylor) gets into these tough questions quite a bit!

[thesometimesaint]

An inclination to give more freely than another person is not necessarily in line with scripture (Mosiah 4:27). There are so many things we do not know about the family dynamics or the situation at hand. As a couple, it is far better that they respect and counsel with each other in an agreed-upon approach as guided by the Spirit. It doesn’t help for others to take sides based on limited information and preferences.

President Taylor said this: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=e16ebe335dc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

"If good people are suffering for the common necessaries of life, the scriptures say, “If a man having this world’s goods see his brother in need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” [see 1 John 3:17.] And in regard to those matters, we ought to look to the wants of everybody. … Do not let us make paupers of them; but let us treat them as brethren and sisters, as good, honorable men and women; let us see that they are provided for.

"I have seen some people who would get down upon their knees and pray most heartily for God to feed the poor and clothe the naked. Now, I would never ask the Lord to do a thing that I would not do. If we have them among us, suppose we go at it and relieve them. … And if people sustain misfortune of any kind, look after them and bestow upon them those things necessary for their welfare and happiness. And God will bless us in so doing.

"I would a great deal rather that you would take, say a sack of flour, some beef, … sugar, some butter and cheese, and clothing, and fuel, and such comforts and conveniences of life, and thus try to make people feel happy, than all the prayers you could offer up to the Lord about it; and he would rather see it too. That is the proper way to do things. In receiving blessings ourselves, try to distribute them, and God will bless and guide us in the ways of peace.

"A man came to Jesus on one occasion and asked him, which was the greatest commandment. The Savior answered him: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” [Matthew 22:37–39.] Can we do that? It is sometimes hard work, is it not? We too frequently feel we would rather put two dollars in our own pocket than one in our neighbor’s do we not? We would rather have two or three cows than that our neighbor should have one? …

"Treat everybody well, and do what is right to everybody, and cultivate the spirit of kindness towards all. And when you see somebody’s cattle in somebody’s grain, feel sufficient interest in his welfare to go and drive them out; and try to promote the welfare of your neighbors and make them feel as comfortable as you can; and God will bless us, and we will bless one another."

I think this attitude strikes a good balance of what the Lord wants our inclinations should be--to neither prejudicially withold nor squander.

 

Agreed.

[Vance]

The scriptures also teach,

D&C 42:42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

And,

3 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

And,

D&C 56:17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!

And,

1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Vance

[Yirgacheffe]

I think that we mock the poor when we do not support a system that would limit poverty. Rather, we seem to have a system where poverty becomes a standard condition for many people in the world. And it seems that this same system creates the ways and means not just to become rich but also poor.

 

I think that this is how the poor are mocked by not providing a foundation for a secure life. Also we mock the poor through food handouts, shelters, free clothing etc. We need an economic system were such things would be non-existent because people would have decent wage, a secure workplace, a secure home and have the availability to live life as a human being.

 

 

 

 

I agree with your points that I underlined but I seem to remember something about there always being poor people?  I have trouble with the underlined part, the kind of economic system you describe is not going to happen overnight, even if every person on earth were to agree with you.  In the interim between what we have and what would achieve your points we still would have people dying of starvation, exposure, and illness.  Right now it is -19 with a windchill of -31 how long would it take someone to freeze to death at that temperature?  I don't think it's mocking them to provide food, shelter, clothing though I could see hypocrisy in providing these things without looking at the system to see where it could changed to address the underlying causes.

[Yirgacheffe]

I appreciate all the comments thus far. I'm enjoying reading the opinions and quotes that are being shared - lots of food for thought. I have to admit I personally align myself most with TSS on this issue but I also understand the complex relationships and emotions which come into play when considering how to help someone, especially a loved one. 

 

There is a local ministry here which does extensive work with the homeless. Something the pastor who heads this group has said that really resonates with me is that homelessness isn't just a lack of money/resources, it's a lack of good relationships. He uses the example that if your buddy has a terrible fight with his wife and she kicks him out, he can drive to your house and you'll hear his sad tale, hand him a pillow and some blankets and let him sleep in the couch on your office. This may go on for days until his problems are resolved. It may go on for months until divorce divides his assets and he leases an apartment. The thing is, he's your friend (or brother or son) and you wouldn't dream of forcing him to sleep on the street. 

 

The person on the street, on the other hand, may not have healthy relationships, whether due to their own actions or due to coming from an unhealthy environment where stable, supportive relationships were not the norm.

 

Obviously, this isn't always the case. We can all point to families we consider reasonably 'normal' (if there is such a thing) where kids or even spouses have gone off the deep end and ended up in circumstances which were far less than ideal. Still, this line of thinking has been very thought-provoking to me. I have started asking myself questions like:

 

Am I creating safe, healthy environments for others by withholding judgment and condemnation even as I encourage them to follow Christ?

 

Do others know explicitly that they can depend on me when times get tough or when they need support, however they need it?

 

Are my relationships such that there is no doubt that I love people regardless of their sins or circumstances and that I will have my hand "outstretched still" for as long as it takes?

 

These are tough questions because although I've verbally expressed this kind of love to many of the people in my life, my actions have to back it up. And my virtue can't be limited to only those people I love. If I badmouth Brother Jones to my friend, I have introduced the doubt in her mind that I may judge her as well at some point. If I refuse to visit teach Sister Smith because she is so darn demanding, then my children may wonder where the limits of my charity are with respect to them. The whole line of thinking brings renewed awe for our Heavenly Father whose virtue is what inspires complete confidence in Him, regardless of how little I merit His love and blessings. 

I like you

[The Nehor]

The scriptures also teach,D&C 42:42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.And,3 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.And,D&C 56:17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!And,1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

You have to be very careful with those scriptures. Note that the condemnation in the first two are of idleness. Does that include the independently wealthy, the guy who owns businesses and collects the money but does not work in them, and the person living off a trust fund or inheritance? Brigham Young used this as a hammer against the idle rich and not the idle poor.

The scripture in Timothy is not a condemnation of someone struggling to provide the necessities of life. It is a condemnation of those who ignore family and household obligations. This is a condemnation of shoving grandma off to a home for convenience sake or not helping a child in need because you need the money to tour Europe. It is not a reason to look down on a poor household that cannot make ends meet.

The Doctrine and Covenants scripture is very apt but it is a warning to those sinning. Unless we hold keys that require judgment in a specific case it is not our place (as King Benjamin taught) to decide who the "worthy poor" are. The only proper use of that scripture is to call yourself to repentance.

[why me]

I agree with your points that I underlined but I seem to remember something about there always being poor people?  I have trouble with the underlined part, the kind of economic system you describe is not going to happen overnight, even if every person on earth were to agree with you.  In the interim between what we have and what would achieve your points we still would have people dying of starvation, exposure, and illness.  Right now it is -19 with a windchill of -31 how long would it take someone to freeze to death at that temperature?  I don't think it's mocking them to provide food, shelter, clothing though I could see hypocrisy in providing these things without looking at the system to see where it could changed to address the underlying causes.

I think that the problem comes when people only focus on the immediate help without realizing that the epidemic of poverty is part of the socio-economic system. It creates poverty through its economic practices. The system is focused on profit before people. Sure it can ease the conscience to help out in a food bank or in a charity. But the solution is only found in reshaping the economic system and by putting people before profit. In that, once must get rid of a system of exploitation and greed. But...people just don't see the light on this issue. They more or less have been integrated into a system of exploitation and look for band aids where a surgery is needed. And this is one reason why Marx called religion the opium of the masses. The poor were told to accept their plight in this world for a better life in the afterlife and the average person or the rich were told by priests and pastors to be generous to the poor in their sermons. But the poor remained poor. Today there are more poor today than two decades ago for the simple reason that government aid does not mean that the family or person is not poor regardless of what the NYTimes states:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/50-years-later-war-on-poverty-is-a-mixed-bag.html?ref=us&_r=0

 

The economic system puts people on benefits because it does not wish to give these people a livable wage or a wage at all.

 

One can do both. Help out and focus on reshaping the system to put the social at the center of development. To give me a free meal at a food bank and then send me home until the next time does seem to mock me because I am still invisible the rest of the time.

Edited January 6, 2014 by why me

[Yirgacheffe]

I think that the problem comes when people only focus on the immediate help without realizing that the epidemic of poverty is part of the socio-economic system. It creates poverty through its economic practices. The system is focused on profit before people. Sure it can ease the conscience to help out in a food bank or in a charity. But the solution is only found in reshaping the economic system and by putting people before profit. In that, once must get rid of a system of exploitation and greed. But...people just don't see the light on this issue. They more or less have been integrated into a system of exploitation and look for band aids where a surgery is needed. And this is one reason why Marx called religion the opium of the masses. The poor were told to accept their plight in this world for a better life in the afterlife and the average person or the rich were told by priests and pastors to be generous to the poor in their sermons. But the poor remained poor. Today there are more poor today than two decades ago for the simple reason that government aid does not mean that the family or person is not poor regardless of what the NYTimes states:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/50-years-later-war-on-poverty-is-a-mixed-bag.html?ref=us&_r=0

 

The economic system puts people on benefits because it does not wish to give these people a livable wage or a wage at all.

 

One can do both. Help out and focus on reshaping the system to put the social at the center of development. To give me a free meal at a food bank and then send me home until the next time does seem to mock me because I am still invisible the rest of the time.

I think people should do both but until things are reshaped, people need food, shelter, clothing, I don't see this as mocking I see it as filling in where the current set up fails.

[Vance]

You have to be very careful with those scriptures. Note that the condemnation in the first two are of idleness. Does that include the independently wealthy, the guy who owns businesses and collects the money but does not work in them, and the person living off a trust fund or inheritance? Brigham Young used this as a hammer against the idle rich and not the idle poor.

The scripture in Timothy is not a condemnation of someone struggling to provide the necessities of life. It is a condemnation of those who ignore family and household obligations. This is a condemnation of shoving grandma off to a home for convenience sake or not helping a child in need because you need the money to tour Europe. It is not a reason to look down on a poor household that cannot make ends meet.

The Doctrine and Covenants scripture is very apt but it is a warning to those sinning. Unless we hold keys that require judgment in a specific case it is not our place (as King Benjamin taught) to decide who the "worthy poor" are. The only proper use of that scripture is to call yourself to repentance.

I made no statement regarding how to interpret the scriptures I quoted. I only provided them.

I find it interesting the way you responded.

You have to be very careful with those scriptures.

As if, I had misused them somehow.

Let's look at them again, only this time I will bold the thing that is being condemned.

D&C 42:42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

I see no distinction between rich or poor there. NOR did I editorialize that there was.

3 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

I see no distinction between rich or poor there. NOR did I editorialize that there was.

D&C 56:17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!

Here, he is specifically talking to the poor (although, it is apparent that the condemnation could and should be applied to any and all.)

1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

And with this one, you opined,

The scripture in Timothy is not a condemnation of someone struggling to provide the necessities of life. It is a condemnation of those who ignore family and household obligations.

Like providing for the needs and wants of the members of the family?

This is a condemnation of shoving grandma off to a home for convenience sake or not helping a child in need because you need the money to tour Europe.

But it would be ok to do it to the children instead?

It is not a reason to look down on a poor household that cannot make ends meet.

Really? So every "household that cannot make ends meet" should be subsidized?

So, if they can't make the payments on the BMW and the 50" HDTV, I am obligated to help them out?

And if they are in a home they can't afford, I MUST make up the difference?

[Vance]

Unless we hold keys that require judgment in a specific case it is not our place (as King Benjamin taught) to decide who the "worthy poor" are.

WRONG!!!

We have to make that judgment EVERY DAY, for God has made us stewards over our own substance.