LDS Freedom Forum

deleted

"We have sufficient for our needs."

-a-train

Everytime I see this subject since I was awaken I remember the times Family and Church leaders counciled me or someone else to get help from the Government. I remember the few months we were on WIC and how my wife said it was humiliating to go to the Health Department. The milk made a huge diference to my kids, but I can't help feeling shame.

I don't think they read quotes like Birchers in church anymore, and I don't know about losing your priesthood....but I can say our marriage is better, I feel more confident and I feel the spirit more frequently now that I can provide for my families needs.

deleted

I can't believe my post did not cause more of a stir. I thought for sure I would have been called an apostate.

You apostate!

Satisfy you?

They could tell you were looking for a fight...

Just to clarify, I have never given anythought to a person losing his priesthood because he didn't understand a principle. But it is an interesting question that I might kick around for awhile.

I was not looking for a fight. Does discussion have to be a fight? That wasn't meant to be argumentative, just curiouse

A few days I sent the following email to our bishop:

In a conversation we had some months ago, I questioned the practice of members in need of welfare being advised to seek assistance from government, be it city, county, state, or federal. This seemed a radical change from the days when BYU President Wilkinson announced in 1970 or thereabouts that he would expell any student from school caught using food stamps, and various General Authorities spole out clearly against members seeking or accepting welfare sasistance from government.

Following are statements on the subject in following years.

"“We are to be free from dependence upon a dole or any program that might endanger our free agency.” (Apostle Howard W. Hunter, General Conference October 1975)

“Occasionally, we receive questions as to the propriety of Church members receiving government assistance instead of Church assistance. Let me restate what is a fundamental principle. Individuals, to the extent possible, should provide for their own needs. Where the individual is unable to care for himself, his family should assist. Where the family is not able to provide, the Church should render assistance, not the government.” (Elder Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference April 1977)

“If a member is unable to sustain himself, then he is to call upon his own family, and then upon the Church, in that order, and not upon the government at all.” (Elder Boyd K Packer, General Conference April 1978)

“Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens. We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even if we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice of self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence. ” (President Marion G. Romney, General Conference October 1982)

"While branch president during our mission in Denmark, I questioned the practice of members unable to support themselves and their families seeking and accepting government welfare. I was told by a member of the stake high council that 'things are different in Denmark' and advised to ignore the issue. (He did, however, speak to the branch about striving to get suitable employment and not deliberately avoid it. We had a couple of families who were cheating the system, collecting welfare and moonlighting.)

"From my recent observations, it appears that things might be different here as well. I should like to know if church policy has changed such that it is acceptable for memvers to seek and accept government welfare assistance, lest I offend someone by speaking my mind on the subject based on earlier policy as I noted above.

I expect this might become a more serious issue as economic conditons in America worsen, as I expect they will."
*****************

This evening the bishop and I talked some more about it and he told me that in a bishop's training meeting some time ago they were told to become acquainted with available welfare services and direct members in need to those services. He suggested that recent increases in need would overwhelm the Church's resources for welfare, (which is what started our conversation on the subject this evening)

on the one hand we're all seduced

on the other, its all our money anyway

I think that this could be taken as being turned over to buffetings. I believe that if we paid our tithing and lived within our means, we would not see any need for government assistance in LDS homes. But so many of us live beyond our means and want the Church to help us when we are in financial peril. The Church cannot support that. The Church SHOULD not support that. Our tithes and offerings are not to be used to raise our standard of living.

-a-train

AussieOi wrote:on the one hand we're all seduced

on the other, its all our money anyway

Until I had read some of those quotes bircher has posted many times, I didn't think there was anything wrong with welfare if someone needed it.

My father always was of the opinion that it was okay to accept some government assistance, considering he pays (I'm estimating) a hundred thousand dollars in taxes or more each year. For one, you might as well get some benefit from it (help for your kids), and he also felt that when a person (me) gets established, they will pay their "fair share" and then some in taxes.

Now I don't think that that attitude is 100% correct, but I think that's the attitude that is most prevalent in the Church today. We are all seduced to some degree or another, as Aussie says.

If it's grounds for losing Priesthood, I'd like for someone to give an example of when that happened. I've heard of people losing their church standing because they abused another, committed adultery, were involved in pornography, or went against the general authorities (and the one who made the "half-naked" missionary calendar). But I don't think anyone has ever lost their priesthood because they accepted WIC or medicaid.

But, I think bircher likes to reach for conclusions sometimes, just to stir things up. Technically, shouldn't we lose our priesthood just for thinking certain things? For not doing as much as we should with out priesthood?

Read the rest of D&C 121:34-46. Give me a priesthood holder you know personally who meets these criteria perfectly all the time. If we fail to meet them to any degree, "amen to the priesthood." Does that mean we should lose the priesthood?

I think God is a little less judgmental, and understands us, and knows we have weaknesses, and as long as we are trying to be righteous, to the degree we know best how to do it, we will be, in most cases, still found worthy. That is my hope.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." That's what I'm shooting for.

I'm sorry you think so low of me Master.

As far as I know, every other post I have made is my testimony of what I believe, and not just for egging people on.

This one is a little different. I lean towards one direction on this, but posed it as a question to get others thoughts on it, to see how my reasoning on it may be off.

I appreciate your thoughts on it, though I am not sure where I stand on it.

From my studies, I think our Father in Heaven is both harsher and more merciful than we think he is. Very much a paradox. Although I hate the "I think God is..." statement from me and anyone else is quite annoying. Who cares what I or anyone else thinks about God? Isn't it more important to find out what He says He is? (Master, you gave a good scripture ref in regards to that BTW)

Here is one for those that say it is ok since they pay into it:


"Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency." ETB BYU 12 April 1977

Bircher wrote:I'm sorry you think so low of me Master.

As far as I know, every other post I have made is my testimony of what I believe, and not just for egging people on.

This one is a little different. I lean towards one direction on this, but posed it as a question to get others thoughts on it, to see how my reasoning on it may be off.

I appreciate your thoughts on it, though I am not sure where I stand on it.

From my studies, I think our Father in Heaven is both harsher and more merciful than we think he is. Very much a paradox. Although I hate the "I think God is..." statement from me and anyone else is quite annoying. Who cares what I or anyone else thinks about God? Isn't it more important to find out what He says He is? (Master, you gave a good scripture ref in regards to that BTW)

I hope I don't act like I think too low of you. If I am guilty of acting that way, my only excuse is sometimes I get annoyed when someone is obviously trying to make a point, and they won't just come out and say it.

However, you've pointed out on this issue, that you have not made a decision. So I can't accuse you of doing that here.

I think the thoughts on what God is like do matter, because people's perception of God is often directly related to their experiences, which are vastly different for everyone. I remember having a conversation with a missionary companion about how he had a hard time understanding how the God of the Old Testament could be the same God of the Book of Mormon, and the same God of today. Sometimes, to the simple human mind, God seems to change, depending on the people, the time, the situation. Yet we say God is always the same. It is an interesting discussion, but I don't think you can just give one scripture or two and say, "This is how God is," because as is always the case, you can find two more that counter or contradict the first two.

I know I get defensive sometimes, because we argue these points in isolation, but we are all real people, with lives and experiences. I just got an email forward with a picture of a truck, and on the back, it says "I'm a republican, because not everyone can live on welfare." That kind of stuff makes me mad. Some people have an easier time in life than others. Some people work hard to get where they are, but others really have a substantial advantage right from the get-go. But we can all do our best. I feel I and my family are working toward getting where we need to be. But it is not like it happens just because you decide to change one day and the next day everything is solved. The idea that republicans don't ever accept welfare, or the more sinister idea that people who don't accept welfare are better than those that do, really gets my blood boiling.

That's why I try and take a more temperate approach. We've discussed many times that we are all trying to fight for freedom in the various ways we can. But Satan would like us to get discouraged (a weakness to which I am especially vulnerable), and then we will not fight at all. So he says "you're doing so little, you're not doing enough, you'll never make a difference." Well, I would rather be moving in the right direction, albeit slowly at times, than to give in to discouragement and give up. I am in no position to say who does and doesn't deserve the priesthood, at this point. But that is, of course, my opinion, and I'm always willing to discuss (time permitting ).

Bircher,

I'm always somewhat amused when this 'unworthy welfare recipient' theme asserts itself by members of the Church. I respect the concern expressed by the General Authorities on this subject and vaguely understand the argument against creating helplessness in those who receive the 'dole'. Most folks would just as soon be able to earn and pay their own way. I'm not altogether convinced that there are vast numbers of LDS members waiting for the Church to bring them food and pay their bills, but I must plead ignorance to some extent.

What I have a more difficult time understanding is why members of the Church never have this discussion in regard to 'corporate welfare' - you know, FASCISM (Statism, Collectivism) - the machine Congress seems unable to stop even as we speak?

ALL the 'no bid contracts', ALL the bailouts for the Savings & Loans, ALL the sweetheart deals with energy corporations to exploit Public Land resources, ALL the subsidies and contracts through USDA, ALL the tax breaks, ALL the legislation blocking accountability through the Judicial process, ALL the FDA manipulation of research data, and on and on which wealth is bled from the ordinary person, his children and grandchildren who still innocently believe in the American Dream.

That seems like a welfare discussion worthy of the Priesthood and one I would dearly love to hear.

positions can change

read Sec 132 lately?

How about 111?

Adam God?

deleted

AussieOi wrote:positions can change

read Sec 132 lately?

How about 111?

Adam God?

I must be blind, but I don't see what in 111 that applies to what we are talking about


officially discontinuing a practice is much different than not believing it any more. I am not touching Adam God with a ten foot pole... here.

Not sure what you are getting at, but principles are principles.

Are you contending that since we are taxed so heavily it is now ok to go to the govt?

With my understanding right now, I would personally choose to live on the streets (if no family would take us in), before taking govt welfare.

To me it is akin to David being told he would be put to death if he prayed. He chose obedience to God over his life.

An LDS welfare mom's sin of being on 'the dole' appears pitiful compared to this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=10330

...no economy can keep up with the burden of debts growing at exponential rates faster than the economy itself is growing. No economy can grow at steady exponential rates; only debts can multiply in this way. That is why Mr. Paulson’s $700 billion giveaway to his Wall Street colleagues cannot work.

What it can do is provide a one-time transfer of wealth to insiders who already have been playing the debt-credit system and siphoning off its predatory financial proceeds to themselves. The Wall Street bankers, brokers and fund managers to whom I’ve been speaking for many decades all know this. That is why they pay themselves such large annual bonuses and large salaries each year. The idea is to take as much as you can. As the saying goes: “You only have to make a fortune once in a lifetime.” They have been salting away their fortunes year after year, mainly in hard assets: real estate (free of mortgages), fine furniture, boats and trophy art.


Their plan now is for icing on the cake – to take Mr. Paulson’s $700 billion and run. It’s not a “bailout of the financial system.” It’s as giveaway – to insiders, to sell out all their bad bets. Companies across the board will get rid of their bad mortgages, and also their bad car loans, furniture time payments, credit-card loans, student loans – all the debts that any competent actuary could have told them never could have been paid in the first place.

Why are we so fixated on which sin is worse? Isn't all sin to be avoided?

Bircher - I don't think you understand the modern form of debate. When you present an idea like this that points out errors, it is easily trumped by another person pointing out larger errors by another party thus removing focus from the original argument (no offense meant to anyone here).

What is the punishment for a member of the Church accepting government welfare?

What is the punishment for a member of the Church accepting government welfare?

Scorn, apparently.