Mocking The Poor

[Tacenda]

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.

That rich dude missed out on a rich experience.

[Vance]

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?

Yes.

AND the indolent government bureaucrat.

 

Brigham Young used this as a hammer against the idle rich and not the idle poor.

I seriously doubt that last part.

Edited to add,

Brigham said,

“Life is best enjoyed when time periods are evenly divided between labor, sleep, and recreation...all people should spend one-third of their time in recreation which is rebuilding, voluntary activity, never idleness.”

Edited to add more,

"Idleness and wastefulness are not according to the rules of heaven." (Journal of Discourses 14:44.)

Edited to add more,

“What have we? Our time. Spend it as you will. Time is given to you; and when this is spent to the best possible advantage for promoting truth upon the earth, it is placed to our account, and blessed are you; but when we spend our time in idleness and folly it will be placed against us.”

Edited January 6, 2014 by Vance

[why me]

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.

To solve poverty, one must be radical. In latin radical means related to a root. And to solve poverty one must dig away the roots of poverty. Years and years people have supported a system that allows the root to grow and prosper. As long as this keeps occurring, the poor will always be with us in great numbers. If people only give what you say the poor need and they are not radical in dealing with poverty, the problem will not be solved.

Edited January 7, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Yes.

AND the indolent government bureaucrat.

 

I seriously doubt that last part.

Edited to add,

Brigham said,

“Life is best enjoyed when time periods are evenly divided between labor, sleep, and recreation...all people should spend one-third of their time in recreation which is rebuilding, voluntary activity, never idleness.”

Edited to add more,

"Idleness and wastefulness are not according to the rules of heaven." (Journal of Discourses 14:44.)

Edited to add more,

“What have we? Our time. Spend it as you will. Time is given to you; and when this is spent to the best possible advantage for promoting truth upon the earth, it is placed to our account, and blessed are you; but when we spend our time in idleness and folly it will be placed against us.”

And yet, when an economic system encourages the firing of people if profits fall, it seems to encourage idleness because these people who have been fired, may not find another job, especially if they are over 50. A system centered on people would have jobs available for people to do because the stress is not on exuberant abundance and profit but on the creative potential of every individual.

Edited January 6, 2014 by why me

[Vance]

And yet, when an economic system encourages the firing of people if profits fall, it seems to encourage idleness because these people who have been fired, may not find another job, especially if they are over 50. A system centered on people would have jobs available for people to do because the stress is not on exuberant abundance and profit but on the creative potential of every individual.

I am unaware of ANY scriptures that faults a "system".

You seem to be advocating a "system" that requires a business to keep an employee EVEN IF they were unproductive, or even if their (either the company's or the employee's) product is no longer competitive or needed.

Those companies that made buggy whips should still have employees, right?

[changed]

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 4:26 - 27)
I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as dfeeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.
27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run bfaster than he has strength.

I prefer to just donate to the church, and let them handle it (in most cases)... we do like to adopt a family for Christmas though (Just gave $ this year), took in a homeless person once - they ended up being paranoid schisophrenic so would not take most of what we tried to give them, but we were able to match them up with someone who was familiar with their disease and they are no longer homeless. 

I was recently accused of looking down on the poor because of my political affiliation - I think everyone, democrats and republicans, both want to help the poor, they just see different solutions (one prefers voluntary organizations, the other secular)

Edited January 6, 2014 by changed

[Vance]

Mosiah 4:26

I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

Apparently, he forgot to include housing, secular education, transportation, big screen TVs and Obamaphones.

[bluebell]

Mosiah 4:26

I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

Apparently, he forgot to include housing, secular education, transportation, big screen TVs and Obamaphones.

 

I think it's interesting that this verse commands that we should administer according to 'their wants' and not their needs.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Actually what we need to be careful of is not interpreting these scriptures so that they only apply to one group. They apply to all regardless of how much money we have. And I think it wisdom to look at how they should apply to both the rich the poor and the those that are in the middle.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think it's interesting that this verse commands that we should administer according to 'their wants' and not their needs.

Well I agree that is an interesting point. But we are far from a society were we can do that. We can't even cover the basic needs of some in this world.  Interesting point non the less.

[Vance]

I think it's interesting that this verse commands that we should administer according to 'their wants' and not their needs.

I think it has to do with the slight change in definition over time.

From the 1828 dictionary (around JS time frame)

WANT, n.

1. Deficiency; defect; the absence of that which is necessary or useful; as a want of power or knowledge fro any purpose; want of food and clothing. The want of money is a common want. 2 Corinthians 8, 9.

From having wishes in consequence of our wants, we often feel wants in consequence of our wishes.

2. Need; necessity; the effect of deficiency.

Pride is as loud a beggar as want, and more saucy.

3. Poverty; penury; indigence.

Nothing is so hard for those who abound in riches as to conceive how others can be in want.

4. The state of not having. I cannot write a letter at present for want of time.

5. That which is not possessed, but is desired or necessary for use or pleasure.

Habitual superfluities become actual wants.

6. A mole.

Where as today, it tends to mean "desires" more than "needs".

Edited January 6, 2014 by Vance

[Yirgacheffe]

To solve poverty, one must be radical. In latin radical means related to a root. And to solve poverty one must dig away the roots of poverty. Years and years people have supported a system that allows the root to grow and prosper. As long this keeps occurring, the poor will always be with us in great numbers. If people only give what you say the poor need and they are not radical in dealing with poverty, the problem will not be solved.

So we should just let them starve or freeze to death until the system is fixed?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So we should just let them starve or freeze to death until the system is fixed?

In a very real sense that is what is happening right now. You, by yourself, simply can't do it on your own. neither can I. A government cant even do it, well, earthly government that is. So yeah they will starve and freeze to death. And there is really nothing you or I can do about it. It is all an individual effort on everyone's part. Until every one is willing to help it wont be solved fully. Sure, people do and can help, and they do it all the time and it is a benefit to those that recieve it. But what about those that don't. Then what? What is the end game? 

Edited January 7, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[The Nehor]

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

I find it interesting the way you responded.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,

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

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

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?

 

I did not say you misused them. I have seen them misused in such a way so I felt like editorializing on context.

 

I am not sure why you included the last three lines? I don't recall endorsing a welfare state.

 

 

WRONG!!!

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

 

I would disagree with two points. The first is the whole concept of me being wrong. Also in the absolute sense God has made us stewards over His substance. It is kind of silly to be made a steward over your own stuff. At that point you are not a steward.

 

We have been given instructions regarding our stewardship and King Benjamin told us in the "most correct book on Earth" that we are not to spend time deciding if the beggar "deserves our help". We are even told that saying his suffering is a just reward for this actions is an outright sin.

 

 

Yes.

AND the indolent government bureaucrat.

 

I seriously doubt that last part.

Edited to add,

Brigham said,

“Life is best enjoyed when time periods are evenly divided between labor, sleep, and recreation...all people should spend one-third of their time in recreation which is rebuilding, voluntary activity, never idleness.”

Edited to add more,

"Idleness and wastefulness are not according to the rules of heaven." (Journal of Discourses 14:44.)

Edited to add more,

“What have we? Our time. Spend it as you will. Time is given to you; and when this is spent to the best possible advantage for promoting truth upon the earth, it is placed to our account, and blessed are you; but when we spend our time in idleness and folly it will be placed against us.”

 

Not sure why you hate government bureaucrats so much that you need to caricature them.

 

Yes, Brigham Young did condemn idleness. I did not contest that. I was stating that when Brigham Young talked about the "idle eating the bread of the laborer" he was usually condemning the wealthy exploiting those who had no choice but to work for them. He came back from Britain disgusted by the way the landholders would have their employees work for barely enough to live on while glutting themselves on the profits.

 

Brigham Young also recommended giving bread instead of money to beggars. He mentioned how sad it was that sometimes he would find his bread thrown in the gutter because that is not what the beggar wanted. He pointed out that it was pretty good bread and he ate it all the time. In one conference Brigham Young even described how to cook the perfect loaf of bread.

 

I do find Brigham Young's endorsement of the 8-hour workday very progressive. That did not become a reality in most of the westernized world until early in the 20th century and we are actually receding a bit from it here in the States.

 

One of my favorite quotes:

 

"Work less, wear less, eat less, and we shall be a great deal wiser, healthier, and wealthier people than by taking the course we now do."

 

Cool, shorter working hours, skimpier clothing, and an end to our obesity epidemic (which makes the last item more pleasant for everyone else). I am kidding....mostly.

 

 

Mosiah 4:26

I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

Apparently, he forgot to include housing, secular education, transportation, big screen TVs and Obamaphones.

 

Yes, as long as the poor have a chicken bone to gnaw on and some pants and a t-shirt and we stop by for a visit if they are sick from exposure we can sit back content that we have done our duty. I am sure that is exactly what he mean.

 

See, I can use hyperbole too.

 

Obamaphones? Wow. So many people want welfare to keep people at bare subsistence and still insist they somehow get a job. Have you ever tried to apply for a job without a phone number? It is probably one of the efficient moves that we can make to get people self-sufficient.

[The Nehor]

So we should just let them starve or freeze to death until the system is fixed?

 

One of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis:

 

One more point and I am done. In the passage where the New Testament says that every one must work, it gives as a reason ‘in order that he may have something to give to those in need’. Charity—giving to the poor—is an essential part of Christian morality: in the frightening parable of the sheep and the goats it seems to be the point on which everything turns. Some people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce this kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian morality. I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them. I am speaking now of charities’ in the common way. Particular cases of distress among your own relatives, friends, neighbours or employees, which God, as it were, forces upon your notice, may demand much more: even to the crippling and endangering of your own position. For many of us the great obstacle to charity lies not in our luxurious living or desire for more money, but in our fear—fear of insecurity. This must often be recognised as a temptation. Sometimes our pride also hinders our charity; we are tempted to spend more than we ought on the showy forms of generosity (tipping, hospitality) and less than we ought on those who really need our help.

[why me]

On this thread i have been claiming that one must not only give to the poor but attempt to create a society that would alleviate poverty by putting people before profit. At the moment, the economic system is a disaster. More and more people in need of help. And it is not just an american problem but a world problem as the Washington Consensus grips the planet with its neoliberal ideology.

 

http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story094/en/

 

And so, what should my role be in all this? A bystander? Someone who just works at a food bank?

 

Edited January 7, 2014 by why me

[why me]

One of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis:

 

One more point and I am done. In the passage where the New Testament says that every one must work, it gives as a reason ‘in order that he may have something to give to those in need’. Charity—giving to the poor—is an essential part of Christian morality: in the frightening parable of the sheep and the goats it seems to be the point on which everything turns. Some people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce this kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian morality. I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them. I am speaking now of charities’ in the common way. Particular cases of distress among your own relatives, friends, neighbours or employees, which God, as it were, forces upon your notice, may demand much more: even to the crippling and endangering of your own position. For many of us the great obstacle to charity lies not in our luxurious living or desire for more money, but in our fear—fear of insecurity. This must often be recognised as a temptation. Sometimes our pride also hinders our charity; we are tempted to spend more than we ought on the showy forms of generosity (tipping, hospitality) and less than we ought on those who really need our help.

The underline portion has been my point all along. Unfortunately, we are failing in creating the necessary society to alleviate poverty. In fact, we are creating the opposite society by chosing profit over people. Giving and creating go together. But only giving is rather passive and assures the problem remains.

Edited January 7, 2014 by why me

[The Nehor]

To solve poverty, one must be radical. In latin radical means related to a root. And to solve poverty one must dig away the roots of poverty. Years and years people have supported a system that allows the root to grow and prosper. As long this keeps occurring, the poor will always be with us in great numbers. If people only give what you say the poor need and they are not radical in dealing with poverty, the problem will not be solved.

 

The radical solution is consecration. It is too radical.

 

There are a lot of other problems as well. Poverty is a kind of mindset. I recently read a fascinating article on why the poor do not save. After reading it I find it hard to blame them.

 

I make a decent wage and save about a thousand dollars a month for both short and long term reasons and fulfill my reasonable wants. If a minimum wage guy tries to save let's say he can save $50 a month by giving up something enjoyable. We both take some kind of financial hit like a traffic ticket or some car repairs. I am a little annoyed but pay it and do not notice. His savings are possibly wiped out for months with nothing to show for it. This happens a few times and the guy gives up on saving. He isn't making any progress so why bother. So he gives up and just spends it as he gets it because saving for the future never works. This is a large part of the reason poverty is passed on to children. When raised by parents living that mindset it becomes "the way things are". 

[deli_llama]

The radical solution is consecration. It is too radical.

I am not sure that it is too radical. This can be especially true if we move beyond our past (united orders) and stopping looking to the future ("we are all waiting for the Brethren to call us to live it" or "waiting for them to set up a system"). Looking at the present moment and just deciding to keep this covenant (and I don't recall we have ever been excused from it) as well.

There are Brother and Sisters out there that choose to set aside many of the things out society often calls needful and to live "sufficent for their needs." The surplus is given for the welfare of the poor. They give all they have honoring both the Law of Sacrifice and the Law of Consecration. Imagine if the 15(?) million members of our Church all did likewise. Only we don't, so it is probably just a vain imagining.

There are those that do though, so it can be done.

[Yirgacheffe]

One of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis:

 

One more point and I am done. In the passage where the New Testament says that every one must work, it gives as a reason ‘in order that he may have something to give to those in need’. Charity—giving to the poor—is an essential part of Christian morality: in the frightening parable of the sheep and the goats it seems to be the point on which everything turns. Some people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce this kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian morality. I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them. I am speaking now of charities’ in the common way. Particular cases of distress among your own relatives, friends, neighbours or employees, which God, as it were, forces upon your notice, may demand much more: even to the crippling and endangering of your own position. For many of us the great obstacle to charity lies not in our luxurious living or desire for more money, but in our fear—fear of insecurity. This must often be recognised as a temptation. Sometimes our pride also hinders our charity; we are tempted to spend more than we ought on the showy forms of generosity (tipping, hospitality) and less than we ought on those who really need our help.

This is what I've been saying, I was responding to Whyme who seemed to be saying that by providing food, shelter, and clothing for the poor we are just not just prolonging the problem but are part of the problem. 

[rodheadlee]

Apparently, he forgot to include housing, secular education, transportation, big screen TVs and Obamaphones.

Those are only for the special people who deserve them.

[changed]

All societies through all history have always had poor among them - it does not matter - communist / socialist / republic - if there is an imperfect person in charge, and an imperfect population, there will be poverty.


10 Why trouble ye the woman?  for she hath awrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
-Matthew 26:10 - 11

History has shown there is no system of government that works... in the millenium, when God reigns, that will work.  Until then?  The war in heaven was over

a.) forcing people to be good or
b.) allowing people to be good of their own free will and choice...

I will always vote for b = voluntary charities, not forced taxes.  Neither secular, nor volunteer/church/community groups have or will solve the problem, but with b there is more love. 
 

Edited January 7, 2014 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

WRONG!!!

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

 

And if we are grudging in that judgement so shall we be judged.

[why me]

All societies through all history have always had poor among them - it does not matter - communist / socialist / republic - if there is an imperfect person in charge, and an imperfect population, there will be poverty.

10 Why trouble ye the woman?  for she hath awrought a good work upon me.

11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

-Matthew 26:10 - 11

History has shown there is no system of government that works... in the millenium, when God reigns, that will work.  Until then?  The war in heaven was over

 

It is true that poverty will exist in societies. However, the problem comes with the increase of poverty due to human greed or due to an economic system that puts profit before people or due to a system that has the mechanisms for the increase of poverty. Amidst great wealth, too many people are forgotten.

[Vance]

At the moment, the economic system is a disaster. More and more people in need of help. And it is not just an american problem but a world problem as the Washington Consensus grips the planet with its neoliberal ideology.

True, socialism does more to redistribute poverty than it does to distribute wealth. Sad, but true.