Missionaries pimped out for sandbag PR stunt for LDS Inc

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're entirely free to find the prospect of answering my question "nauseating."

Have a great day.

[_TygerFang]

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?

It's interesting to watch you argue by implied insults and claimed superiority and all, but I'd much rather see what you have to say about the actual topic (without the insults).

Are they doing the charity for the good of mankind? Well maybe in part, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the church did all the PR for the good of mankind also...

[_Chap]

You're entirely free to find the prospect of answering my question "nauseating."

Have a great day.

I do. I will.

[_Sethbag]

I have no problem with the missionaries helping out with the flooding. What I have a problem with (and it's not something I'm losing sleep about) is the church feeling the need to issue an actual news release about it. It really does give the impression that the church is looking for PR wherever they can find it.

If I had had an opportunity, as a missionary, to go fill sandbags for several days, as an alternative to knocking on doors or trying to talk to people on the street about the church, which 9999 out of 10000 had absolutely no interest in, I'd have taken it in a heartbeat. To get out of tracting I think most missionaries would be willing to do all sorts of things. And, presumably, they really wanted to help, too. That's great. Too bad the church turned it into a cheap photo op.

[_The Nehor]

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!

It's been taught in every class on Church History I've ever taken.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's interesting to watch you argue by implied insults and claimed superiority and all, but I'd much rather see what you have to say about the actual topic (without the insults).

I'd never realized, before, what a sensitive lot you folks here are. Very easily insulted, it seems, and extraordinarily vulnerable to even implied negativity. Who would have guessed?

Are they doing the charity for the good of mankind? Well maybe in part, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the church did all the PR for the good of mankind also...

I'm sure that a legitimate desire to serve is an important motivation in the Church's efforts worldwide. I also think it's entirely legitimate for a controversial organization like the Church -- or, indeed, for any organization -- to make the point that it's a good citizen of society and that it makes an important contribution.

The New Testament's strictures against individuals boasting of their charitable good deeds don't seem to me to apply to organizations.

[_Sethbag]

The New Testament's strictures against individuals boasting of their charitable good deeds don't seem to me to apply to organizations.

I would like to think that, upon further reflection, this statement ended up being one you regret having made.

[_TygerFang]

It's interesting to watch you argue by implied insults and claimed superiority and all, but I'd much rather see what you have to say about the actual topic (without the insults).

I'd never realized, before, what a sensitive lot you folks here are. Very easily insulted, it seems, and extraordinarily vulnerable to even implied negativity. Who would have guessed?

Never said I was insulted, just interested. You're a person who seems to want to have a factual and intellectual discussion, and yet I see you going lower than you should and simply insulting instead of presenting facts.

Are they doing the charity for the good of mankind? Well maybe in part, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the church did all the PR for the good of mankind also...

I'm sure that a legitimate desire to serve is an important motivation in the Church's efforts worldwide. I also think it's entirely legitimate for a controversial organization like the Church -- or, indeed, for any organization -- to make the point that it's a good citizen of society and that it makes an important contribution.

The New Testament's strictures against individuals boasting of their charitable good deeds don't seem to me to apply to organizations.

Well you know how it is, it's pointless to do charity unless everyone else knows you do charity. I'm sure that there is a good motive somewhere in there, the problem is that that good motive is mixed in with the want of a positive image and opportunities for yourself that charity work give an organization.

[_The Nehor]

The New Testament's strictures against individuals boasting of their charitable good deeds don't seem to me to apply to organizations.

I would like to think that, upon further reflection, this statement ended up being one you regret having made.

Well, you have two standards. One is letting your light shine, one is not to boast. Just gotta find the happy medium.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

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.

I don't consider myself a liberal secularist. I see myself more as a conservative, I know... that's hard for you to fathom.

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.

Good for you. While others seem to require religion to be good parents and compassionate citizens, there are many who do not.

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?

Many of the folks you see out sandbagging are doing it because it is their own communities that are being threatened by flood waters. These folks are not "helping out" they are defending against the almighty mother nature. Many are locals just helping out their neighbors and do not dress up in special PR tshirts announcing that they are a caring concerned neighbor. Unlike the Mormons in this PR piece, the thousands of other folks are there to simply and quietly help.