DiscussMormonism.com

BFD, a bunch of people filling sandbags trying to stop mother nature. We will see this happen many more times.

But LDS Inc never misses a photo op.

Never mind the tens of thousands of others who are futility attempting to stop hold back the floods, LDS Inc sees the following story with flooding in Quincy Illinois:
Missionaries Fill Sandbags as Mississippi Rises
- Reminder of the supposed persecution of the early membership
- Reminder of the MoTab putting on a free concert (with low attendance) back in 2002
- Wow, those Mormons in our area are sure a nice group of cultists!

If what the Mormons were doing there was THAT big of an impact, the local media would have picked it up. Otherwise it is just a bunch of missionaries pimped out for a PR photo op to accompany a fake news report from LDS Inc.

Bah, making fun of good deeds is too cheap of shot.

moksha wrote:Bah, making fun of good deeds is too cheap of shot.

Gawd you are dense.

Faking a good deed for a cheap PR stunt is typical of LDS Inc and should be made fun of.

A good deed is different than a PR stunt for LDS Inc.

Why the press release? Why the shirts? Why the photos?

It is simply a PR stunt to trot out the old persecution horse one more time.

"We are doing this, just like the Motab did, in appreciation for the non Mormons taking in the poor picked on chosen children of god back in 1839."

I do agree it's rather pathetic that this kind of thing results in an actual press release (it's listed in the "News Releases and Stories" tab) by the church PR department. I'm glad they helped out, but it's too bad they couldn't just do it and let the deed speak for itself. And yeah, I'm sure the missionaries did this because they wanted to "say thanks" to Quincy Illinois for what people in Quincy did for Mormons back in 1839. Uhuh.

My hell.

It is a press item on THE CHURCH"S web page for Press releases. Big deal. Man you are desperate to criticize. Get a life dude.

The missionaries did this because,

a) many missions requre "service hours" every week, ours was 4. This is a quick and easy kill, don't have to go hunting.
b) extra service is time away from tracting.
c) they wanted to help.

The church did this because,

a) They are on the constant hunt for PR.

I loooove this story and press release that will hopefully be viewed by plenty of current LDS.

In the March 1839 edition of the Quincy Whig newspaper, the editor wrote that “if they (the Mormons) have been thrown upon our shores destitute … common humanity must oblige us to aid and relieve them all in our power.”

Quincy took in more than 5,000 refugees, almost three times its population in 1839. The citizens organized rescue efforts, provided shelter, created jobs and gave members of the Church protection from those wishing to harm them.

It shows how compassion, charity, and goodwill is apparent outside of the Church and how those in the early Church were helped by strangers. I think it's important to have stories like this juxtaposed against stories of persecution. I also appreciate that current Saints recognize what was done for their ancestors and show their appreciation by helping the community. I think it's a win-win!

About a year ago, I read Professor Arthur Brooks's Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism (New York: Basic Books, 2006), which argues on the basis of numerous social science studies that, despite their preening of themselves on their superior concern for the poor, their very vocal boasting of their warmer hearts, and their frequently expressed disdain for religious conservatives, liberal secularists give considerably less to charity (and even to non-religious charities) and do considerably less charitable volunteering than do religious conservatives. Just this past week, I read Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals (New York: Doubleday, 2008), which uses still other social science research to make essentially the same point.

Out of curiosity: What, if anything, have the secularists here done, specifically, to help out with the flooding in the Midwest, or with any of the disasters and humanitarian crises of the past few years, or (above and beyond the taxes that they owe) to combat poverty?

Hi, Daniel, I too have seen studies that show those that are religious and conservative give much more to charity than liberals and secularists. I saw a break down of red vs. blue states one time and the red states (even though having significantly lower incomes on the average) gave more to charity.

I do my part. I'm not doing a break down for ya -- it's unseemly. :)

Daniel Peterson wrote:About a year ago, I read Professor Arthur Brooks's Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism (New York: Basic Books, 2006), which argues on the basis of numerous social science studies that, despite their preening of themselves on their superior concern for the poor, their very vocal boasting of their warmer hearts, and their frequently expressed disdain for religious conservatives, liberal secularists give considerably less to charity (and even to non-religious charities) and do considerably less charitable volunteering than do religious conservatives. Just this past week, I read Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals (New York: Doubleday, 2008), which uses still other social science research to make essentially the same point.

Out of curiosity: What, if anything, have the secularists here done, specifically, to help out with the flooding in the Midwest, or with any of the disasters and humanitarian crises of the past few years, or (above and beyond the taxes that they owe) to combat poverty?

Is one a strange person for feeling a little nauseated at the prospect of entering into a contest with DCP about who gives more money that actually finds its way into the hands and mouths of the needy? Besides, how would he know that the 'secularists' are not lying?

Oh, and by the way: some of us feel that the spirit of Matthew 6 still has something to commend it, even if we no longer expect a heavenly reward:

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

This would seem to rule out issuing many press releases on the subject of the good one does.