DiscussMormonism.com

On page 21 of the GHBI this is discussed. It says essentially that the ward welfare committee should become familiar with and utilize community resources. It further states that if a member uses government assistance the bishop should make sure he does not duplicate government assistance and that the member should be advised to disclose Church assistance in their attempt to receive government assistance.

I wonder if this change in attitude towards government assistance was caused by the realization that it simply wasn't possible for the church to address all the needs of their distressed members. I wonder if the increase in membership in third world countries has contributed to this realization.

beastie wrote:Sorry, I misunderstood your example.

So in your opinion, it would be a consistent position for the LDS church to actively oppose welfare programs or social security, but at the same time actively encourage its members to benefit from those services? I think it's hypocritical. If social security, medicare, medicaid and welfare are examples of creeping socialism, then people who oppose socialism ought not to benefit from those programs. Benefiting from those programs encourage the continued existence of those programs, because they demonstrate that the programs address a legitimate need. If society can function without those examples of creeping socialism, people who oppose creeping socialism ought to be examples of how to function without them.

I view this like me taking your and a bunch of other people's food to run a food bank, in the process running much of the private food banks out of business, then complaining when you show up at the food bank for food because you opposed my food bank program.

I view this like me taking your and a bunch of other people's food to run a food bank, in the process running much of the private food banks out of business, then complaining when you show up at the food bank for food because you opposed my food bank program.

This is a flawed analogy. If the government were taking all of people's paychecks, then it would be sound. In addition, private groups - like religions and charities - who also provide assistance to those in need aren't even being taxed in the first place. Now some argue that if private individuals weren't taxed, they would donate more to private charities, but the LDS church has helpfully provided an example of how that isn't sufficient. They still encourage their members to turn to the government, despite one of the most efficient systems to collect donations in existence.

We don't even need an analogy to demonstrate the issue. The situation is that people who aren't in need of government assistance oppose being taxed partly to provide that government assistance to people who are in need, but when, one day, they suddenly are in a situation wherein they need assistance, then they have no problem with government assistance.

Actually, the Book of Mormon does teach a form of socialism.

Nowhere does it do that though you migh get that impression by selectively referencing a couple of verses to the exclusion of all others. LDS don't get their doctrine that way. People with a personal agenda do.

Perhaps the church leadership should add a new question to the temple recommend interview: Do you receive social security benefits?

At the very least, if your opinion is the One True Opinion as you seem to think, people who answer affirmatively should be denied temple recommends.

Could be simplified by asking who did you vote for. ;)

Thanks for that information, Jason. That seems to directly contradict bcspace's assertions on this thread. Clearly the LDS church is not opposed to government programs that uber-conservatives label "socialist". Clearly the LDS church agrees with the idea that the government can and should assume some responsibility for care for the poor and needy. Equally clear is the fact that the LDS church is not opposed to social security.

I never said that having a welfare program was socialist. I simply have said (correctly) that LDS doctrine is in direct opposition to socialism. I too am privy the CHI, other handbooks as well, and also have to attend various stake and regional welfare meetings. Besides the doctrine taught, socialism and the increase of the welfare state is roundly and soundly bashed by the GA's and simple welfare itself is the last resort. Even the Law of Consecration is a captialist and free market system (Section L, D&C institute manual).

Just because the Church doesn't take a political position doesn't mean a political position isn't contrary to doctrine.

So social security isn't socialism, welfare isn't socialism - just what is the socialism you oppose that the democratic party supports?

And if the church is so opposed to welfare, as you state, then why are members encouraged to seek it when needed?

EAllusion wrote:

beastie wrote:Sorry, I misunderstood your example.

So in your opinion, it would be a consistent position for the LDS church to actively oppose welfare programs or social security, but at the same time actively encourage its members to benefit from those services? I think it's hypocritical. If social security, medicare, medicaid and welfare are examples of creeping socialism, then people who oppose socialism ought not to benefit from those programs. Benefiting from those programs encourage the continued existence of those programs, because they demonstrate that the programs address a legitimate need. If society can function without those examples of creeping socialism, people who oppose creeping socialism ought to be examples of how to function without them.

I view this like me taking your and a bunch of other people's food to run a food bank, in the process running much of the private food banks out of business, then complaining when you show up at the food bank for food because you opposed my food bank program.

I can see that logically Allusions first point, a person could reasonable collect social security while believing it was a bad idea to start with and politically support elimiinating it in the future. After all Allusion paid into it to start with so should get return on his investiment even if he genuinely believes it would have been better to invest elsewhere. On the other hand if one believed social security was a demonic incursion of incipient communism it may be honorable to not collect to make a clear stand. Most people think of the problem in terms of which investiment is better for our society not slippery slopes to the devil. (I might be wrong but I think Beck sees something like the slippery slope to the devil)

I thought for a while Mormons had monopoly on useing the argument that people need the moral credit for giving to the poor so it is best not to involve tax money. Use of tax money eliminates the personal choice. I have the Huckabee fellow on fox repeat the argument several times.

I think this argument is short on substance a couple of ways. First I do not see federal food assistance eliminating the need for food bank private help. Using Allusions terms, I do not see food banks being driven out of business. They fullfill needs and people who are concerned to help people can help food banks and if they actually wish find many more ways to help. I can only imagine that it is either indifference to need or general unawareness of needs that would allow someone to think that government welfare help makes it more difficult for private help to happen.

Good points, Huck. I do have one comment in regards to this:

After all Allusion paid into it to start with so should get return on his investiment even if he genuinely believes it would have been better to invest elsewhere.

Today's social security recipients receive more than they put into the system, anyway.

It should be easy to determine whether dismantling social security would be beneficial - just look at the situation prior to the creation of social security. Most people living in poverty prior to the creation of social security were the elderly. Now, it's children.

Today's social security recipients receive more than they put into the system, anyway.

You sure about that? Do you include the fact that if someone could have invested what they, and theoretically their employer put is at even a reasonable rate of say 5% over a life time it would grow to hundreds of thousands of dollars?

For me, I may get back what I put in (especially assuming what I could have got investing on my own) if I live to be about 120. Really there is no way I will ever get back what I have put in even in the past ten years based on my life expectancy and projected benefits and this assuming that there will be benefits when I retire.

SS is one of the absolute worst places for retirement money to go as far as ROI.

I do not think this will be true for you or I, but, if what I've read is reliable, it is true for many of today's recipients.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_wel ... form.shtml

Until recent years, Social Security recipients received more, often far more, than the value of the Social Security taxes they paid. However, because Social Security tax rates have increased over the years and the age for full benefits is scheduled to rise, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Social Security will be less of a good deal for many future recipients. For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years (based on the trustees' 2002 intermediate forecast.) Some observers feel these discrepancies are grossly inequitable and cite them as evidence that the system needs to be substantially restructured.