Rivers Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I recently listened to a certain podcast. The host bemoaned the church not putting enough focus into the fourth mission of the church which is taking care of the poor and needy. Does the fourth mission get put on the back burner in favor of the first three?
Paddy Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I am not quite sure we know how to do it. We appeal to a certain type of "market" in the church which are people that are below a level of a kind of advancement, for example, the un- or under employed and others that have potential by not means, like the PEF. But I am not convinced we have "programs" that target the significantly poor and needy. Most of the ministrations that are made to these type of people are done without church resources because they don't really exist for these type of people.
Tacenda Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 And it seems we could have more service missions that are for that demograhic only. We have them, but do we have enough of these? And does one hsve to hold a recommend to go on one? 2
Storm Rider Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 The Church has focused on caring for its own rather than caring for the world at large in foreign lands and domestically. I think the Church cares for its own extremely well generally, but given the difference in individual leaders some are better at it than others. We do not do well with setting up soup kitchens, creating places for individuals to sleep, and other similar services where the world determines are better ways of serving the poor. Given the size of the Church it appears she finds more success or stronger preference, and obviously a definite focus on working with members that are struggling. I personally don't have any angst or concern about the Church's welfare program(s). It does an excellent job and appears to have consistently caught the attention of third parties whether that is governments, other churches and/or organizations. 1
Traela Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I think it depends on the ward. For many years, my ward was quite focused on helping the Humanitarian Center. Since they switched to local needs, we have lost our momentum a bit. Also, the Church tends to focus more on the "teach a man to fish" model. So we have literacy specialists, the PEF program, the Pathways program, RS activities that teach various aspects of self-sufficiency. They don't register the same way, but they very much help the poor and needy in the long term. 2
rpn Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 The Fourth Mission, "care for the poor and needy", was only added to the statement a few years ago, and it was presumably intended to both acknowledge long practiced actions as well as to remind church leaders and members of obligations beyond the employment centers and fast offerings. I'm not sure yet that we've caught either the institutional or the personal fire about this mission yet.
3DOP Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I don't make this run anymore, but I used to pass this little old truck on I-5 most Wednesdays between Eugene and Roseburg, OR that said something LDS on it. Would it have been "Bishop's Pantry"? Anyway, I don't think it was about going to some wealthy person's house. Another thread indicate you have five million active members. Y'all can't feed the world. Catholic Tradition places a strong emphasis on seeing Christ in the poor too, and helping them. Even as big as the Catholic Church is, we can't feed the world. Sell the Cathedrals? As what? A monument to the reason why there are starving people? There is a hunger that is more important than food; we need nourishment for the soul too. If we make our churches ugly we might feed bodies, but not long. Cathedrals and Temples aren't like forests. They aren't renewable resources. Anyway, I won't belabor that unless somebody wants us or you to trade all of our beautiful stuff that raises thoughts to heaven, for bags of oatmeal...that when gone will not be replaced. 3
Tacenda Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) I don't make this run anymore, but I used to pass this little old truck on I-5 most Wednesdays between Eugene and Roseburg, OR that said something LDS on it. Would it have been "Bishop's Pantry"? Anyway, I don't think it was about going to some wealthy person's house. Another thread indicate you have five million active members. Y'all can't feed the world. Catholic Tradition places a strong emphasis on seeing Christ in the poor too, and helping them. Even as big as the Catholic Church is, we can't feed the world. Sell the Cathedrals? As what? A monument to the reason why there are starving people? There is a hunger that is more important than food; we need nourishment for the soul too. If we make our churches ugly we might feed bodies, but not long. Cathedrals and Temples aren't like forests. They aren't renewable resources. Anyway, I won't belabor that unless somebody wants us or you to trade all of our beautiful stuff that raises thoughts to heaven, for bags of oatmeal...that when gone will not be replaced. I'm realizing more and more how our faiths align. ETA: I mean the Catholic and the LDS churches. I don't believe Jesus Christ is in brick and mortar but atleast anyone can go in some of your Cathedrals and worship right? And I'm not sure the bible agrees about gathering genealogies like the LDS church does. I'm sure there have been several debates about this. And the gathering of those genealogies is the reason for temples. Edited September 14, 2014 by Tacenda
The Nehor Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 The reason many people harp on the "fourth mission of the Church" not getting its due is because many see no value in the other three. 3
wenglund Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) There is a very high office in the Church specifically devoted to the 4th mission of he Church. It is called, the Presiding Bishopric. Thus, bemoanings about the supposed lack of focus by the Church on the 4th mission, are woefully uninformed. The Church offers temporal as well as spiritual assistance, while other people offer bemoanings. Take your pick which is doing far more good for God's earthly kingdom if not the world at large. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited September 15, 2014 by wenglund
Calm Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I don't make this run anymore, but I used to pass this little old truck on I-5 most Wednesdays between Eugene and Roseburg, OR that said something LDS on it. Would it have been "Bishop's Pantry"? Anyway, I don't think it was about going to some wealthy person's house. Another thread indicate you have five million active members. Y'all can't feed the world. Catholic Tradition places a strong emphasis on seeing Christ in the poor too, and helping them. Even as big as the Catholic Church is, we can't feed the world. Sell the Cathedrals? As what? A monument to the reason why there are starving people? There is a hunger that is more important than food; we need nourishment for the soul too. If we make our churches ugly we might feed bodies, but not long. Cathedrals and Temples aren't like forests. They aren't renewable resources. Anyway, I won't belabor that unless somebody wants us or you to trade all of our beautiful stuff that raises thoughts to heaven, for bags of oatmeal...that when gone will not be replaced. Probably "Bishop's Storehouse".
cinepro Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I recently listened to a certain podcast. The host bemoaned the church not putting enough focus into the fourth mission of the church which is taking care of the poor and needy. Does the fourth mission get put on the back burner in favor of the first three? Someone in Sunday School recently mentioned "the threefold mission of the Church". I interjected that it was now a "fourfold" mission, and that the fourth was caring for the poor and needy. No one had heard about it, and they all thought I was making a weird joke. Granted, based on my previous comments in class over the years such an assumption isn't entirely without justification, but nevertheless, they didn't know what I was talking about. 1
Calm Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) "fourfold mission" Do a search for that on LDS.org and see what comes up. It is not surprising that members aren't aware of the usage. Even the updated handbook doesn't use that terminology: https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-handbooks-introduced-during-worldwide-training?lang=eng The four aspects are defined here, but not labeled that way: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/print/worldwide-leadership-training/2010/11/overview-of-the-new-handbooks?lang=eng This also talks just about the "mission of the Church" rather than a "fourfold mission" and again gives the four categories. I think there may be an intentional movement away from separating the aspects as if our activities and policies are established to fulfill only one of the categories at a time instead of as many of them as possible. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31179_eng.pdf?lang=eng Edited September 14, 2014 by calmoriah 2
ERayR Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I recently listened to a certain podcast. The host bemoaned the church not putting enough focus into the fourth mission of the church which is taking care of the poor and needy. Does the fourth mission get put on the back burner in favor of the first three? Not in my ward.
The Nehor Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Someone in Sunday School recently mentioned "the threefold mission of the Church". I interjected that it was now a "fourfold" mission, and that the fourth was caring for the poor and needy. No one had heard about it, and they all thought I was making a weird joke. Granted, based on my previous comments in class over the years such an assumption isn't entirely without justification, but nevertheless, they didn't know what I was talking about. Well, shortly after they added the fourth they pretty much got rid of the "mission" statement entirely so I am not surprised. If I hadn't heard it online I probably wouldn't know about it either. 1
cinepro Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 This also talks just about the "mission of the Church" rather than a "fourfold mission" and again gives the four categories. I think there may be an intentional movement away from separating the aspects as if our activities and policies are established to fulfill only one of the categories at a time instead of as many of them as possible. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31179_eng.pdf?lang=eng About 20 years ago, the High Priests group in my ward actually divided everyone into three "committees", and each would focus on one of the missions of the Church. Each "Committee" would meet together during the third hour once a month.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) IMHO, no program designed by men will be completely successful. If the church really wants to fulfill the "Fourth Mission" they will institute a tiered consecration/storehouse program starting at the Ward level- which would sift the wheat from the tares, help people focus on needs over wants, and bring in more money to the Ward coffers allowing them to do more good for both needy members and the community.But I'm only just a lonely heretic, my voice is of no consequence. Edited September 15, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr
The Nehor Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 About 20 years ago, the High Priests group in my ward actually divided everyone into three "committees", and each would focus on one of the missions of the Church. Each "Committee" would meet together during the third hour once a month. My Elder's Quorum did that once. Because I indexed and was a Temple Worker I got put on the "Redeem the Dead" committee which meant just keep doing whatever it is you are doing. Not like the "Perfecting the Saints" committee. Their unofficial name was "the Moving People" committee.
3DOP Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Probably "Bishop's Storehouse". That's it cal!
3DOP Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) I'm realizing more and more how our faiths align. ETA: I mean the Catholic and the LDS churches. I don't believe Jesus Christ is in brick and mortar but atleast anyone can go in some of your Cathedrals and worship right? And I'm not sure the bible agrees about gathering genealogies like the LDS church does. I'm sure there have been several debates about this. And the gathering of those genealogies is the reason for temples. Hi Tacenda. Thank you for your observation. Permit me a few thoughts. Everyone can go into parts of the Cathedrals that are open to the public. No one can ascend the altar and insist on worshipping where it is reserved for priests and other consecrated servers of the Mass. That area is reserved for the public worship. Nor is everyone permitted in the sacristy, the rooms behind the altar where vestments and other liturgical paraphernalia are kept. If I am not mistaken, there are similar holy places that are off limits to non-Mormons in their temples? That seems reasonable enough to me. Speaking from the Catholic side, if an individual has such a yearning to worship in areas that are restricted, there is usually a way to gain access by fulfilling certain requirements. If one is not willing or is unable to meet those requirements but still wants access, I would suggest that the yearning is probably inordinate. Respect for the reasons and development of church architecture and usage can be helpful in such situations so people have an understanding that these restrictions are by no means intended to limit anyone's access to God. Not to be mean spirited, but it would be inappropriate to grant access to these places just because of a misplaced desire. In such instances we would think that access would have an effect opposite to true worship, at least in the sense that it would further a misunderstanding about the supposed benefits of trespassing into restricted areas. I think both of our churches have an awareness that without humility, it is difficult to approach God. A docile acceptance of the hierarchical nature of the Church and its reflection in the use of our buildings is an important beginning step that needs to be taken by those who mistakenly assume that there should be "equal rights" for all. Just as genealogies seem to me to follow from an LDS interpretation of I Cor. 15:29, I presume any restrictions on access to certain parts of LDS temples are also intimately connected with it, or perhaps other distinctive LDS beliefs. It seems to me that all of us have practices that are neither directly condemned nor directly commended in the Bible, but follow logically from our interpretations of the Bible. Ordinarily, there is freedom where no law proscribes an action and I would suggest that gathering of genealogies would follow under that law if the Catholic view of I Cor. 15:29 is correct. If the LDS view of I Cor. 15:29 is correct, I would suggest that by implication, the Bible "agrees" with gathering genealogies. Regards, Rory Edited September 15, 2014 by 3DOP 2
David T Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) "fourfold mission" Do a search for that on LDS.org and see what comes up. It is not surprising that members aren't aware of the usage. Even the updated handbook doesn't use that terminology: https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-handbooks-introduced-during-worldwide-training?lang=eng The four aspects are defined here, but not labeled that way: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/print/worldwide-leadership-training/2010/11/overview-of-the-new-handbooks?lang=eng This also talks just about the "mission of the Church" rather than a "fourfold mission" and again gives the four categories. I think there may be an intentional movement away from separating the aspects as if our activities and policies are established to fulfill only one of the categories at a time instead of as many of them as possible. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31179_eng.pdf?lang=eng This is pretty much exactly what Elder Oaks said in a local training meeting here a year or two ago. When a Bishop asked how to prioritize the "Three-fold Mission" in the ward, he said, frankly, the best thing he could do was "Forget about it", noting that having it set up that way caused people to compartmentalize the gospel, and didn't include a key aspect that was an esential part of even President Monson's personal ministry. the new wording and emphasis tries to discuss aspects of the mission of the Church in the Work of Salvation without trying to divide them. Caring for the Poor and Needy is as much a way to contribute to the Work of Salvation as gathering Israel through Missionary Work, Temple Worship, and spiritually building up current Church members. About 20 years ago, the High Priests group in my ward actually divided everyone into three "committees", and each would focus on one of the missions of the Church. Each "Committee" would meet together during the third hour once a month. Exactly the kind of thing Elder Oaks was trying to get rid of. Edited September 15, 2014 by David T 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) About 20 years ago, the High Priests group in my ward actually divided everyone into three "committees", and each would focus on one of the missions of the Church. Each "Committee" would meet together during the third hour once a month.That didn't happen just in your ward. The Melchizedek Priesthood Handbook of the day (long since discontinued) directed quorums and groups to do that very thing. Edited September 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
EllenMaksoud Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 I am not quite sure we know how to do it. We appeal to a certain type of "market" in the church which are people that are below a level of a kind of advancement, for example, the un- or under employed and others that have potential by not means, like the PEF. But I am not convinced we have "programs" that target the significantly poor and needy. Most of the ministrations that are made to these type of people are done without church resources because they don't really exist for these type of people.Not to be too indelicate, there is a portion of those who use the humanitarian services of the church who are frankly "using" it with no thought of being members or obeying the Covenants. Those who are Covenant following members, fallen on hard times, are the ones I like to think of when I start feeling peckish and judgmental when I volunteer at the Bishop's Store house. I have made use of the Bishop's Storehouse a couple times, and while most of the food given out there is quite wholesome, some of it is frankly inedible, and long time customers know the difference. When I have volunteered at Deseret Industries, the merchandise there is mostly certainly serviceable and helpful to those who buy it. I do not know of any paid staff there and despite that, the services offered there seem really great.
Recommended Posts