Romney, Mormonism, and a Concern for the Poor

Considerable commentary has been given regarding the release of Mitt Romney’s secret video in which the Republican candidate informed a room full of wealthy campaign donors that his “job is not to worry about” those receiving government assistance due to their poverty.

If the Republican candidate we all know affectionately as “Mitt” had simply stopped there, it might have been possible to interpret his lack of worry in the sense of merely gaining their vote, rather than a true lack of concern for their welfare.  Unfortunately, however, Romney followed his “my job is not to worry about those people” remark with the statement, “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

As has been noted, the 47% that do not pay income tax in the United States, whom Romney declared will never take personal responsibility for their own lives, is made up of 17 percent who are either students, people with disabilities, or illnesses, and the long-term unemployed, 22 percent who are 65 or older living on Social Security, and 61 percent who are in fact working people paying payroll taxes, but not making enough money to contribute an income tax due to Ronald Regan and George Bush implemented programs.[1]

Whether the criticism Romney has received over his originally private remarks is fair or accurate, his expressed lack of “worry” has rightfully received considerable attention.   What is sometimes forgotten in this “war of words, and tumult of opinions” is the way in which Romney’s secret declaration directly paralleled the presidential candidate’s infamous public comments spoken months earlier following his victory in the Republican Florida primary: “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” Romney told CNN reporters, “we have a safety net there.”

These widely discussed statements by Mormonism’s most famous son provide an opportunity for Latter-day Saints to reconsider the question to what extent they should in fact feel “worried/concerned” about poverty in their respective countries, together with whether or not Mormons hold a moral responsibility to help implement government sponsored programs designed to equalize wealth.

After all, these type of social programs are certainly an important part of our communal theology and history.  Moreover, the Church itself has recently added the line “to care for the poor and needy” to its threefold mission statement. Should Latter-day Saints, therefore, work together with government-sponsored programs in their respective countries to accomplish this mission?

Should Mormons and their political candidates of choice “worry” about the poor?

As a disclaimer, let me first state that I certainly don’t pretend to have all of the answers to the world’s political problems.  Speaking personally, I’m officially registered as an independent and I move back and forth in my support of candidates in our two-party political system.

Moreover, when it comes to these types of complex issues, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wisely maintains strict political neutrality.  However, I would like to share some of the theological reasons I believe that the issue of poverty and government responsibility should constitute one of the primary political issues Latter-day Saints consider when selecting public officials.  In sum, LDS scripture seems to dictate that Mormons should support political candidates who are deeply concerned about the poor and needy.

Politics is no doubt a tricky business.  I don’t believe that Romney doesn’t “care” about the poor.   I’ve sat on the same church pew as the man, and have sung with him LDS hymns such as, “Because I Have Been Given Much, I Too Must Give.”  I believe that Romney is a good, sincere person who truly does “care.”  I know he does.

In a world in which an ever increasingly cynical public has immediate access to almost every single word spoken by a political candidate, there’s no question in my mind that Romney’s true altruistic feelings towards the poor were not correctly reflected in these brief politically charged remarks.

In his defense, Romney was simply using political rhetoric intended to inspire his supporters.  The problem, however, at least from a Latter-day Saint scriptural perspective, is that the type of rhetoric that the Republican party wants to hear their candidate spout is spiritually destructive.

Compare the following sentiments:

(1)  My job is not to worry about the poor not paying income tax. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

(2)  Ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God (Mosiah 4:16-18)

Latter-day Saint readers will immediately recognize that the second quote, i.e., the one that stands in direct opposition to the sentiment expressed in the first, derives from their scriptural Book of Mormon.

Make no mistake about it.  According to the Book of Mormon, those who adopt the perspective that the poor should not receive help and instead take personal responsibility for their lives have no “interest in the kingdom of God.”  From an LDS scriptural perspective, this “kingdom” concept that appears in Mosiah 4:18 is itself a highly charged political term.  The New Testament has much to say regarding the subject.

“Blessed be ye poor,” proclaims the Jesus of Luke’s Gospel account, “for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20).  Jesus’ statement stands as a witness of the New Testament Christ’s messianic promise that through the kingdom of God, the poor would be makarioi, a Greek adjective that the King James translators rendered as “blessed,” but which means more precisely “happy.”  The same assurance of “happiness” for the poor appears expressed in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” proclaims Matthew’s Christ, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).

Unfortunately, Matthew’s addition of the phrase “in spirit” in relationship to the poor has been the cause of considerable confusion.  Traditionally, some Latter-day Saint interpreters have read the expression “poor in spirit” as a moral qualification for celestial glory.  This reading, however, fails to consider the first beatitude in the context of Jesus’ views regarding the kingdom of God and the crucial role Christ declares that kingdom fulfills in the eradication of all poverty.

As New Testament scholar N.T. Wright succinctly expressed regarding the beatitudes (including Matthew 5:2), “if we think of Jesus simply sitting there telling people how to behave properly, we will miss what was really going on.”[2]

The kingdom of God that the New Testament Christ established was not an otherworldly location where the righteous will go after death to enjoy celestial bliss.  The author of Matthew makes this point clear through his introduction to Jesus’ public ministry: “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17).

For the New Testament Christ, the kingdom of heaven that would eradicate poverty and mourning, that would feed the hungry and clothe the naked was not simply a celestial place removed from the world.  According to Jesus’ sermon, the righteous meek would in fact inherit the earth, where the will of God will be done, just as it is in heaven.[3]

Through Jesus Christ, the kingdom of Heaven had in fact come to earth, and was then carried forth with great power through his disciples.  In this kingdom, Jesus promised that the poor would experience happiness and justice, i.e. “righteousness,” since their poverty would be completely eradicated.  Interpreted this way, the kingdom Jesus proclaims shares much in common with the concept of “Zion” defined in LDS scripture:  “And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18).

Read through this lens, the initial New Testament beatitude regarding the kingdom presents a promise of eschatological happiness and reassurance to the literal poor, rather than a description of a spiritual quality. Matthew’s phrase “poor in spirit” simply refers “to the frame of mind characteristic of the literally poor,” writes New Testament scholar, Donald A. Habner:

“Thus, by the added ‘in spirit,’ Matthew or the tradition before him has not ‘spiritualized” the Lukan       (and probably original) form of the beatitude. He too means the literally poor, but he focuses on their psychological condition or frame of mind. The poor are almost always poor in spirit; the poor in spirit are almost always the poor.”[4]

In their assessment of the Sermon on the Mount, biblical scholars have long noted the manner in which the Beatitudes professed by Christ reflect the Messianic mission identified with the Lord’s anointed in the book of Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn” (Isaiah 61:1-2)

The Gospel of Luke goes so far as to specifically inform readers that Jesus publicly identified himself and his mission with the fulfillment of this Old Testament passage (Luke 4:16-21).  As Messiah, Jesus’ mission was to establish a kingdom that would literally open the prison doors to those bound in debt slavery.  His disciples would then carry forth this mission into the world.

In his New Testament writings, Paul seems to indicate that Jesus took this Messianic charge to liberate the captive poor quite seriously.  As a wealthy man, Jesus may have literally given away all of his riches to the needy:

“For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9)

Providing commentary on this intriguing Pauline passage, New Testament scholar George Wesley Buchanan once observed:

“It was not unusual for a wealthy person in Jesus’ time to give his wealth to a community that called itself ‘the poor’… and to which he would at that time have been accepted as a full member. This was a requirement for admission into the Essene sect (Philo, Apologia pro ludaeis, IX, 4-5) or the Community at Qumran (IQS i 11-12; iii 2; v 2-3, 13, 18-23; ix 8-10…   There is no way of knowing how many sects there were at the time of Christ that made requirements similar to those of the Essenes, but Jesus would not have been out of character with Judaism of his time if he had given his wealth to some sect that had either existed previously or to one that he founded, and accepted the voluntary role of poverty.”[5]

So the New Testament Jesus may have been a wealthy man who gave up all of his riches to care for the poor and needy.  An interesting idea.  Either way, Jesus’ first sermon presented in the Gospel of Matthew makes clear that from his perspective, a person could never serve both God and wealth, i.e. Aramaic “mammon,” and that true Christian disciples will seek to eradicate poverty by making the poor “blessed.”

As a final note on this theological vision, a scriptural passage for Latter-day Saints found in the Book of Mormon seems to have been designed to provide direct exegetical commentary on the specific motifs found in Jesus’ New Testament Sermon:

“Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.” (Jacob 17-19)

The concept of thinking about others like unto yourself appears in Matthew 7:12;  the idea of seeking first the kingdom of God appears in Matthew 6:33; the notion of feeding the hungry appears in Matthew 5:6; and the concept of the merciful liberating the captive appears in Matthew 5:7, and Isaiah 61:1, the text that seems to have directly inspired the Beatitudes.  Read this way, Jacob 5:17-19 in the Book of Mormon indicates that Christians have a moral responsibility to fulfill the eschatological expectations regarding poverty proclaimed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

We are to do everything we can to make the poor “blessed.”

It would appear that Latter-day Saints who view these scriptural statements as inspired declarations have a religious obligation to “worry” about the poor and to equalize wealth.    This is what their prophet Joseph Smith did in instituting such political/communal organizations as the United Order.

Recognizing that a secular government is not the same thing as the kingdom of God, the question still remains, to what extent (if at all), Latter-day Saints should seek to implement this scripturally mandated assignment into their respective secular societies.  Returning to the issue of Mitt Romney and his political rhetoric on this topic, I know that when push comes to shove, Mitt cares about the poor.

From a scriptural perspective, this concern constitutes a political matter all of us, including secular governments, have a moral responsibility to address.  So perhaps it’s time to drop the rhetoric.


[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/2/

[2] N.T. Wright, Matthew For Everyone; pt. 1, 36.

[3] “This kingdom of heaven does not refer to the place people go when they die.  Rather, it refers to God’s presence on earth, a kingdom that he will bring at the end of this age by overthrowing the forces of evil.  When God does this, the weak and oppressed will be exalted, and the high and mighty will be abased.”  Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, 110

[4] Donald A. Habner, Matthew 1-13: Word Biblical Commentary, 91.

[5] George Wesley Buchanan, “Jesus and the Upper Class,” Novum Testamentum; 7 (1964): 206-207.

Comments

Romney, Mormonism, and a Concern for the Poor — 47 Comments

  1. Since I take the home mortgage interest deduction and I was once on unemployment for three months while I was between jobs and I paid no taxes while I was on a mission, I guess I am part of the 47 percent. But to Romney’s point that his job, presumably when he is elected, is not to care about the 47 percent, I have to say why the heck not? If there are people who are in need, whether they are the truly needy poor and disadvantaged or whether they are the bloodsucking leeches Republicans want us to believe they are, would it not be part — and an important part — of the president’s job to address their needs and their situations and try to move them out of the needy class to a more self-sufficient and productive status? Why would any president write off any percentage of the population, simply dismiss them, as Romney claims he will? This is not only not a very Christian policy, it doesn’t make sense politically or economically either. It’s disappointing to see someone with his intelligence saying such dumb things just to please some of his base.

  2. Thanks, David. Nicely written. Gustavo Gutierrez would be proud. That Mosiah passage is particularly striking.

    I was telling Don just last night that even if Romney doesn’t really believe what he said, the fact that he said it is still deeply problematic, because it legitimizes that way of thinking and implies that it’s worth pandering to. The right isn’t going to move back toward the center until the movers and shakers in their party stop letting the radicals set the agenda.

  3. A couple of observations.

    1- Our duty as individual Christians and as a community of Christians is to care for the poor. This does not mean that it is the government’s duty to force us to care for the poor.

    2- Caring for the poor does not mean giving them free stuff. It means transforming their lives in such a way as to lift them out of poverty. The three greatest indicators of poverty are sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility leading to single parenthood, lack of education, and drug and alcohol dependency.

    3- By any objective standard the policies of the Obama administration have made poverty worse, not better. Medium income has decline, joblessness has increase, number of people in poverty has increased. If you want to help the poor, you need to change failed government policies.

    4- Obama’s incredibly irresponsible fiscal and deficit spending policies are impoverishing the next generation.

    5- I support Romney because I care for the poor.

  4. I think you have grossly misinterpreted Romney’s remarks. He was talking about his election strategy. He made a simple observation. There is a large core of Obama supporters who are not going to vote for Romney, no matter what. His job in this election is not to worry about trying to appeal to those people. It is never going to work. Those people tend to be people who are dependent in some way on big government and they will never be persuaded to vote for Romney. I am quite sure that is all he meant. It was a comment about election strategy only, and his remarks had nothing whatsoever to do with whether we have a duty to take care of the poor. There are still plenty of reasons to oppose Romney, but this not one of them.

  5. 1. Nice Randian platitude but what does that have to do with the OP or, really, anything?

    2.Good thing literally nobody is suggesting we do!

    3. Google “recession”. Then, Google “correlation and causation”

    4.It’s cute if you imagine Romney intends to reverse course on deficit spending. I’m sure once he cuts his taxes and bumps Military spending he’ll get all over that. You know, by cutting all those other things he won’t specify. Umm, Amtrak?

    5. Only you know what motivates you, but it sounds like you’re setting yourself up for disappointment if your guy wins (I write as a proud non-voter).

    As for the OP, well put.

  6. Dear Gary. I appreciate your comment, but I’m afraid that you appear to have misinterpreted my essay; or at least you seem to have missed what I believe were some important points. I think highly of both Mitt and the Romney family. In terms of his candidacy, I see my essay as both defense and critique.

    Best,

    –DB

  7. Thanks, Chris. One of the most spiritual observations on this topic ever made: “Poverty is not fate, it is a condition; it is not a misfortune, it is an injustice. It is the result of social structures and mental and cultural categories, it is linked to the way in which society has been built, in its various manifestations.”

    Best,

    –DB

  8. William

    1. We all understand the Madisonian/Ron Paul/Libertarian/Cato Institute (Koch Brothers) view of the General Welfare Clause. But we also live in the real world. There are many things that private charity cannot do and invidual donors will choose not to do. The only option in these cases is for government action.

    The debate should be over what programs are effective and needed, not that they exist at all.

    2. The causes that you list are all true. However, you cherry pick by only listing those for which there is little sympathy.
    -over 60% of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses
    -Many American businesses are trying to drive down wages, eliminate unions, grab pension money and ship jobs overseas (Bain Capital?). The net result is often unemployment and a loss wages that force people into poverty
    -There are veterans coming back after serving the country who cannot find jobs. There are veterans who were wounded, physically or psychologically, who cannot find jobs at an even higher rate. Where are the Libertarian/Republicans on doing something for these people who put their lives on the line for our country? They voted down the Veterans job act, Romney did not even acknowledge them in his acceptance speech, Michelle Bachman and others proposed ending the VA, and they are part of Mitt’s 47% who “cannot take responsibility for themselves.”
    -There are poverty pockets such as Appalachia where there is not the money available to get a loan to start a business or go to college. Only Pell Grants, government guaranteed college loans SBA loans can help the young student or small businessman escape poverty.

    3. Your statement about the Obama administration is right wing claptrap. Even conservatives like Bill Kristol admit the actions of the Obama team saved us from economic catastropheand the Republican Governnor of Michigan stated that Romney’s bankruptcy plan would not have worked and Auto industry would have died except for Obama. The
    creme de la creme was when Lou Dobbs on Fox Business News advised Romney not to use “are you better off today than you were four years ago” mantra. Why? “Any damn fool knows in 2008 this country was in crisis.”

    5. I understand. If we keep cutting the tax rate for the super wealthy there will be more jobs for maids and gardeners. If we get people back to work on a large scale wages would go up, and we can’t have that. Let us continue things like carried interest so Mitt can pay at a tax rate lower than you or I. If you wouldn’t have had the Bush tax cuts and Recession, we would not be here.

    Frankly it is much more complicated than a simple attack on one person or another, my canards included.

  9. David: I think I understand your essay and I think you make some excellent points. And I do realize that is both a defense and a critique. My point is perhaps a narrow one and perhaps a distraction from the thrust of your comments. I just think that his comments are actually entirely irrelevant to the issue of how we take care of the poor, because they had nothing at all to do with that issue. Having said that, we must all make this issue a priority and I genuinely appreciate your insights.

  10. I agree with William Hamblin. We have literally dozens of revelations in the Book of Commandments and Doctrine & Covenants about sharing wealth and caring for the poor. Not a single one is directed toward trying to the get government to do anything. It is our duty as a covenant people to get the government to our duty for us so that we can say that we gave at the office. Add to that the real issue: let’s just let those who make the wealth do it for us through government programs as a means of failing to care for the poor (as study after study shows actually happens with those that adopt a philosophy that reliance on government programs is proper means to care for the poor).

    I have a more trenchant criticism. David Bokovoy is someone I admire and respect so I will do my best to tread lightly here. Urging a political criticism based on religious beliefs is idolatry. Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasars — but leave me out of your plans for what is God’s. As far as I can tell, no revealed to care for the poor ever relied on coercing Peter to pay for Paul because more Pauls voted it. I am making a very serious charge here — idolatry is a vicious sin and those who want to misuse the revelations of God for their political purposes have manipulated God for their purposes. Add to that the so-called LDS Democrats who hold a caucus at a convention to say that their political party is supported by God — if the Republicans did something like that they would be howling about the separation of church and state. As an independent who care not much for either party, I am appalled at such tactics.

    The notion that the Obama administration’s policies saved the economy is so much left-wing non-sense. The massive debt that threatens our national well being, the fact that literally more is spent in interest on the national debt (at $16 trillion and growing rapidly) at the rate of 227.2 billions exceeds the amount spent on agriculture, veteran affairs, unemployment, education and homeland security. Those who don’t see the reality of this debt — which Obama has done absolutely nothing to address — is the real threat to our national security and why our economy continues to penalize every American both rich and poor.

    I am always stunned that Obama-nation backers don’t get the massive problem that this debt poses.

  11. Dear Blake,

    Thank you for sharing your feelings.

    “I have a more trenchant criticism. David Bokovoy is someone I admire and respect so I will do my best to tread lightly here.”

    Well, since you’ve publicly referred to my views on this important issue as “idolatry,” I would hate to see what happens when you tread harshly. Still, you’re entitled to your opinions, and I’m glad you’ve expressed them.

    “We have literally dozens of revelations in the Book of Commandments and Doctrine & Covenants about sharing wealth and caring for the poor. Not a single one is directed toward trying to the get government to do anything.”

    Indeed, a bit more precisely, we have literally hundreds of scriptural statements on the importance of sharing wealth and carrying for the poor. For Latter-day Saints, D&C 134:5 states that “all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest.” In light of the emphasis on eradicating poverty in LDS scriptures, I can’t see how any believing Latter-day Saint could possibly suggest that caring for the poor and needy is not in the public’s “best interest.”

    It would seem from my perspective, therefore, that LDS scripture suggests that governments have a God-given right to enact laws that will benefit society by attempting to eradicate poverty.

    More specifically, I believe that my comments raise an important question: Recognizing that a secular government is not the same thing as the kingdom of God, the question still remains, to what extent (if at all), Latter-day Saints should seek to implement this scripturally mandated assignment into their respective secular societies.

    To refer to this effort at dialogue on the importance of applying these scriptural precepts into secular society as an example of “idolatry” is not only unkind, but rather silly, to say the least.

    “Urging a political criticism based on religious beliefs is idolatry. Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasars — but leave me out of your plans for what is God’s.”

    I’m going to have to kindly disagree with your perspective. I don’t believe that biblical views ever reflect the modern notion of a separation between Church and State assumed in your comments.

    The passage to which you refer appears in Matthew 22:20-22. Rather than a separation of church and state, Jesus’ audience would have recognized that his comments suggest that as Roman subjects they should render unto Cesar his image, the coin, but unto God his image, i.e. themselves as human beings (Gen. 1:26-27).

    Hence, the passage really doesn’t promote a notion of a separation between religious and secular authority; this modern notion runs contrary to ancient conceptions. There was a wonderful Bible Review article on this pericope several years ago that explained this very well.

    “As an independent who care not much for either party, I am appalled at such tactics.”

    I am sorry that my comments upset you, Blake. Truly. But while I accept that you are appalled,based upon previous discussions, I have a hard time believing that you’re truly an “independent.”

    Still, however you choose to define yourself and me, I still sincerely wish you the best.

    –DB

  12. I have the work of Arthur Brooks in mind when you say “study after study,” Blake. I was wondering if you had any specific research you’d care to share on that subject.

  13. “We all understand the Madisonian/Ron Paul/Libertarian/Cato Institute (Koch Brothers) view of the General Welfare Clause.”

    I think Madisonian would have been sufficient.

  14. David: I didn’t expect you to see it my way — but I really object to this kind of wresting of the scriptures. Arthur Brooks, Jonathan Haidt, Karen Winterich et al., — pick whoever you will, the data are uniform in showing that those who self-identity as conservative give more to charity. That is because it is a simple lie that those who favor big government are more caring and concerned about the poor. Conservatives and liberals disagree on the value of big government support programs. The proper role of government is a a valuable debate; the argument that scripture supports your view of big government is not addressed in the scriptures and you are wresting them to try to make political hay to support your views. I take issue with all of this approach — just as I believe that Harry Reid’s judgments of Romney are beneath contempt and miss entirely what really counts to be a Saint.

    However, what is in the best interest of the common good is something we can discuss. Your suggestion that the baptismal covenant in Mosiah (which you cite for this purpose) supports big government programs to help the poor is not even arguable in good faith — it is simple eisegesis of the worst kind. I believe that such government programs are not merely an inefficient waste, but long-term keep the poor in poverty and are used as an excuse for the real work of being compassionate with the poor. I decry those who use these kinds of political tactics to score points and to suggest that Romney is less worthy as a Latter-day Saint than they are because they are a Democrats who promote government programs to do what Latter-day Saints have been commanded to do as a community by free choice and covenants freely entered. The failure to see that governments act only by coercive power is the problem here.

    If I am forced to give by paying taxes, do you really believe that amounts to charity? Do you believe for one second that if I am forced to support programs with which I disagree that is the same as giving freely of my substance to be divided among all according to our needs by the Presiding Bishop? Come on.

    I also notice that you said nothing about the overwhelming deficit that is strangling our economy — and the vast government deficits and spending is strangling the world economy. Yet the only solution offered is spend, spend, spend. When do we become fiscally accountable?

    It seems that you would like to move closer to a European style socialism — because you can see how well that has worked out for Europe. That is why the comment about the “God given right of governments to enact laws that eradicate poverty” is so unfathomable. Governments don’t have rights; people do. Governments have failed to eradicate poverty and have almost always solidified cycles of poverty into the culture of those who become dependent on such programs. What you believe are efforts to help are really wasteful and inefficient programs that entrench poverty. The funny thing is that Clinton actually saw that view and agreed with it — and reduced welfare and dependency greatly.

    I can agree that the modern notion of separation of church and state is not supported by Christ’s statement about rendering unto Ceasar — and neither did I say that it did. Christ’s comment about “rendering to Ceasar” is well-recognized as distinguishing between those offerings properly made to God and those which are demanded through coercion by a corrupt governmental system. Are you suggesting that Christ was somehow endorsing imperial Rome’s governmental programs through taxation? Such an interpretation would be most laughable interpretation I have ever heard.

    However, let me reiterate that I respect your work on Near Eastern studies — it just doesn’t translate well for me in this political arena.

  15. A minor quibble, Blake. According to Putnam and Campbell’s American Grace, Arthur Brooks’s claim that “‘religious conservatives’ are more generous than other Americans . . . turns out to be only half right. . . . It is their religiosity and not their political ideology that produces the generosity. To praise conservatism as a more generous ideology is to commit an elementary statistical mistake, for the correlation between [political] ideology and generosity is spurious. It is to give conservative icons like Adam Smith or Edmund Burke credit for God’s work” (457-58). In fact, they find that religious people on the left are slightly more generous than those with the same levels of religiosity on the right.

    While I wouldn’t necessarily say that conservatives are less concerned about the poor, I’d definitely say that they’re less sympathetic to them (tending to regard poverty as the deserved result of personal failure) and less realistic about what’s necessary to ensure them economic opportunity and a minimum standard of living.

  16. David, I agree with Blake.

    Even the Church leaders have addressed the issue of a balance between dependence and self-reliance and how complex the issue of providing for the poor is in that balance. The “eradication of poverty” you talk of cannot be done..!! The Savior even said it… “The poor will always be with you.” How would our true charity ever be tested if “poverty were eradicated” and please, let’s not pretend that government programs are really carefully craftetd to raise people out of poverty. Money taken from those who have it by the government and doled out to the poor, helps neither the poor, in the long run, nor the person ‘required’ to give. The poor become entitled and debilitated not lifted and empowered. Those that are required to give do it without ‘real intent’ so it is a gift given ‘grudedly’ or no gift at all.

    David, you quote, “Ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor”. Notice it says “Ye yourselves”.

    You can’t change reality unless you are willing to face reality and the reality is this country is broke, way beyond broke. The rich can be taxed at 100% and it will not save us from spending beyond our means nor will it get us out of debt..! That is reality..!! And, when governments go broke as we see in the EU, what then will be your solution for all the newly government created poor?

    The ‘right’ that has been so easily denigrated gives far more to help the poor, of their own free will, than the ‘left’ that speaks so loudly and with such great feigned moral authority. The solution is neither to the left nor the right but somewhere between the two.

    Capitalism and the freedoms given to us by the constitution have lifted more people out of poverty than any other political or enconomic system in the history of mankind. Spending beyond your means doesn’t work for individuals, families, companies nor nations. It never has and it never will..!

    Even God doesn’t attempt to save everyone from their own choices nor from the adversities that befall us because of our choices or the choices of others. We came here to learn, to be tested, not to live in the Garden of Eden.

  17. A brief note on the secular/religious vs. conservative/liberal charitable divide:

    “Let’s see what happens when we control for income, education, religion, age, gender, marital status, race, and political views. If two people are identical in all these ways, but one feels the government should redistribute income more and the other disagrees, the second person will be 10 percentage points more likely to make a contribution to charity. He or she will give $263 more to charity each year, and will give $97 more to secular causes.” (Brooks, 2006: pgs. 56-57) In this case, it is not so much politically conservative vs. politically liberal as it is redistribution vs. non-redistribution.

    Putnam’s data is interesting, especially since Brooks found that religious conservatives give about 10 percentage points more than religious liberals. (pg. 50) However, he did find that secular conservatives were stingier than secular liberals. Yet, in 2009, Brooks wrote in the WSJ that secular conservatives had passed secular liberals in charitable givings. He reported that–all things being equal–secular liberals give $1,100 less, on average, than secular conservatives. Not only that, conservatives decrease their givings less than liberals during recession periods. A 10% decrease in conservative family income led to a 10% drop in givings, while the same income decrease in liberal families led to a 16% drop in charitable givings.

    See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html

    Perhaps Putnam has more recent numbers.

  18. Dear Miskky,

    Thank you for your observations…

    “Even the Church leaders have addressed the issue of a balance between dependence and self-reliance and how complex the issue of providing for the poor is in that balance”

    Personally, I believe that the concept of “self-reliance” is a bit overrated. It certainly from my perspective can lead to spiritual problems, not only in the way we begin to view others who are not doing their fair share, but even more importantly, it can lead to a feeling of entitlement towards spiritual blessing. I would highly recommend the book The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller on this point. Wonderful read!

    “The “eradication of poverty” you talk of cannot be done..!! The Savior even said it… “The poor will always be with you.” How would our true charity ever be tested if “poverty were eradicated””

    Scriptural texts, such as Matthew 26:11, need to be read in context. The fact that Matthew presents Jesus telling a group of disciples in first century Bethany “You always have the poor, with you don’t you? But you won’t always have me,” doesn’t change the fact that both in LDS scripture and specifically in the New Testament, the kingdom of God eradicates poverty.

    Moreover, personally, I don’t believe that charity is something that is tested. As the pure love of Christ it can’t even be earned. It is very much a spiritual gift.

    Best,

    –DB

  19. David, I agree with your sentiments here about the Mormon obligation to the poor.

    I have a minor disagreement with the description of Romney’s thoughts behind the dinner fundraising party comments however.

    I don’t think pandering to the GOP fundraising base was the core motivator behind Romney’s remarks about the 47%. I think driving the remarks was an inherent, and very Mormon, feeling of being misunderstood. A sort of cynical, resigned, wisecracking…. can I call it “resentment?”

    The feeling Mormons in the US often have that “no one really gets us or understands where we are coming from, and people are always going to take advantage of us and willfully refuse to see our perspective.” I’ve seen the same attitude in LDS Sunday School meetings – and I think it often causes us to say some perversely inflammatory blunt statements that do our own position a disservice.

  20. William, we live in a representative democratic republic, which means we choose our representatives democratically and entrust them to make policy decisions, including on how people are taxed and how that tax revenue is spent. If they do not make decisions we approve of, we hold the politically accountable

    The government is not “forcing you” to give to charity any more than it is “forcing you” to pay for national defense or “forcing you” to pay for the nation’s debts. It’s just how representative republics work: you willingly give up a measure of personal autonomy and entrust it to representative that you get to take part in selecting. It’s how our political society was conceived and how it has operated since 1789.

    If you don’t agree with the particular expenditures of money that your representatives have chosen, vote for different representatives. But another part of living in a representative democratic republic is that you have to accept that if everyone else wants different representatives than you do, you are out of luck. And that is really my point here: social welfare spending is not “forced charity”; it is representatives that you voted for doing what they were elected to do. That’s how representative democracy works.

    There are significant trade-offs for this surrender of individual autonomy, and the Enlightenment philosophers have gone into it far mroe extensievly than I could, but the point remains: this is the political system our society is grounded in. If you really want a libertarian paradise where you are not obliged to surrender any autonomy whatsoever, you are going to have to either move to outer space or abolish the Constitution entirely. Good luck with that.

  21. Thanks, David, for a most enlightening post. I appreciate you redeeming the private Romney in my eyes somewhat, since his own performance as a candidate has me shaking my head often. At the same time, it seems to me that Romney’s statements are not necessarily just about pandering to billionaires. They seem to me, rather, to be wrapped up in the many contradictions of LDS conservatism, which manages to combine some rather inflammatory tough talk about the government and welfare with a record of actual giving that put the lie to the tough talk.

    The rest of the debate in this thread about who gives more and does what better is, in my view, rather infuriating, because it looks to me to be entirely beside the point of your post, which is to challenge certain rhetoric on poverty as problematic on gospel grounds and challenge individual LDS folk to do better by the poor, whether that is in personal giving or support for the kind of programs that are best administered by state or federal agencies.

    Should LDS people be proud of their welfare program and its accomplishments? Yes, but I would bet one could easily argue that the bar has not been nearly met. Christ expects much more from his people than one currently sees happening. And, I believe that one cannot simply look at Church welfare as the only right way to do things, while the government gets it wrong. The simple fact is that Church welfare does not suffice on its own to relieve the poverty of the saints. The government is still a necessary part of the effort to relieve poverty in this country. So, one cannot say, “I believe in LDS welfare, not government welfare,” and think this really covers it.

    Finally, I would like to echo the argument of Kullervo on this idea of compulsion. From the time that the Bush administration started to bang the drums of war against Iraq, I have felt like the US was being taken on a ride, and was also failed by the leadership of that invasion in such a way that the occupation dragged on for years. At no time, however, did I ever feel like the military was a waste, that we had all been “coerced” into war, and that I would not support the troops, but rather treat them and the Bush administration that took them to Iraq like a foreign enemy within our own country.

    In a representative democratic republic, we will often see our tax dollars go to efforts we do not personally support or fully condone in the way that they are carried out. We have the power in our vote to change things. In the meantime, it does no good to the health of our republic to pretend that our political enemies are some kind of foreign cancer on the body politic that must be removed by hook or crook. The end result will be the actual end of the republic–destroyed by those who claim to be defending it.

  22. >>David said: “Personally, I believe that the concept of “self-reliance” is a bit overrated. It certainly from my perspective can lead to spiritual problems, not only in the way we begin to view others who are not doing their fair share, but even more importantly, it can lead to a feeling of entitlement towards spiritual blessing.”

    When being self-reliant is a point of personal comparative pride it certainly can lead to your perspective. But, self-reliance as expressed by the leader of the Church is one of self-responsibility which seems to be the point of our being here.

    David said: “Moreover, personally, I don’t believe that charity is something that is tested. As the pure love of Christ it can’t even be earned. It is very much a spiritual gift.”

    Charity is not what is being tested. We are what is being tested. “Our” charity is being testing, being put up against true charity, the pure love of Christ. Being possessed of that pure love of Christ certainly is a gift. Nevertheless, with any gift comes the human challenge to maintain that gift in our lives, to endure and persist thru the end.

    I guess I believe differently than you, David. I guess I don’t believe the “Kingdom of God” as it exists here on earth, administered by we weak and sinful humans, will ever eradicate poverty.

  23. >>Kullervo said: “There are significant trade-offs for this surrender of individual autonomy, and the Enlightenment philosophers have gone into it far more extensievly than I could, but the point remains: this is the political system our society is grounded in. If you really want a libertarian paradise where you are not obliged to surrender any autonomy whatsoever, you are going to have to either move to outer space or abolish the Constitution entirely.”

    One could say “good luck” with any system of government when the “voice of the people” choose to avail themselves of the largese of the treasury with little or poor judgment about the future. This poor judgment extends throughout Left, Right, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist, marxist or communist.

  24. >>Trevor Luke Said: “it does no good to the health of our republic to pretend that our political enemies are some kind of foreign cancer on the body politic that must be removed by hook or crook.”

    Is this practicing what you preach when you say this..? “They seem to me, rather, to be wrapped up in the many contradictions of LDS conservatism, which manages to combine some rather inflammatory tough talk about the government and welfare with a record of actual giving that put the lie to the tough talk.”

    All the sniping at each other’s point of view or beliefs certainly will not bring us together to find “real” solutions no matter from where they come.

  25. Miskky, I would invite you to reconsider your approach to your response to me. You complain about my “sniping,” when what I wrote was intended as a compliment to LDS conservatives. I was trying to distinguish tough rhetoric about self-reliance from the generosity that they show every time they pay fast offerings or voluntarily help someone in need in other ways. I have a difficult time understanding why you should get your hackles up over a compliment that merely reiterates in other language an observation that has been raised by a few other people in this thread.

  26. >>David said: “As has been noted, the 47% that do not pay income tax in the United States, whom Romney declared will never take personal responsibility for their own lives, is made up of 17 percent who are either students, people with disabilities, or illnesses, and the long-term unemployed, 22 percent who are 65 or older living on Social Security, and 61 percent who are in fact working people paying payroll taxes, but not making enough money to contribute an income tax due to Ronald Regan and George Bush implemented programs.”

    Without the full text of Romney’s speech we may never know the context within which the 47% comment was made however clumsy it might have been. However, around the time of his comments there was a widely published survey that indicated about 47% of the american people felt the government should do more for them and about 47% felt the government should do less for them. Additionally, with all the talk of who pays and doesn’t pay federal income taxes, it was also indicated that about 47% of americans don’t pay any federal income tax.

    It might be very easy to draw a conclusion that those who don’t pay taxes might want to continue to not pays taxes and might just vote for that to continue.

    In actuality, I am retired but my wife is still working and in 2010 (and 2011), though our income has never been great, we certainly haven’t been poor, I was appalled at how little federal tax we had to pay, the lowest amount in our entire married life! My comment at the time was, “No wonder the country is going broke!” (I will say, neither did I write a check to the Treasury to make my share more “fair”.)

  27. What kind of further context are you expecting? Romney was simply incorrect in asserting that the 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax can never be persuaded by Romney to be self-reliant. Even he claimed that he chose his words poorly. If he can accept that he made an error, why are you so determined to see him as not having done so?

  28. David,

    One could argue that “the poor will always be with you” if we take the U.S. Census Bureau’s approach to measuring poverty:

    “The current poverty thresholds do not adjust for rising levels and standards of living that have occurred since 1965. The official thresholds were approximately equal to half of median income in 1963-64. By 1992, one half median income had increased to more than 120 percent of the official threshold.” (pg. 1)

    Due to rising standards of living, poverty must become relative to the surrounding standards:

    “Adjustments to thresholds should be made over time to reflect real change in expenditures on this basic bundle of goods at the 33rd percentile of the expenditure distribution.” (pg. 2)

    See: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf

    [Written with tongue-firmly-in-cheek]

  29. Romney did admit his comment was clumsy but I don’t recall him “accept[ing] that he made an error”. Many considered it a political error not necessarily a factual error. I simply agree with the later.

  30. Trevor Luke: I guess I didn’t accurately read your comment. Thank you for setting me straight.

  31. David,

    I’m curious as to why you find the concept of “self-reliance” overrated, especially since Marion G. Romney (at the time a member of the First Presidency) declared it a prerequisite to service and godhood:

    “[S]elf-reliance is a prerequisite to the complete freedom to act…The key to making self-reliance spiritual is in using the freedom to comply with God’s commandments…Can we see how critical self-reliance becomes when looked upon as the prerequisite to service, when we also know service is what Godhood is all about? Without self-reliance one cannot exercise these innate desires to serve. How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak.” (Conference, Oct. 1982)

    I find Romney’s Conference talk insightful, bringing the best (as the gospel often does) of various ideologies into one great whole. He criticizes the dependency and sense of entitlement often created by government programs, parents, and church officials. Yet, he also preaches the interdependence involved in “perfecting the saints.”

    I suppose self-reliance could potentially breed stinginess and a lack of compassion. It could also breed a sense of responsibility and accountability. Much like the term “individualism,” it would depend on what exactly you mean by “self-reliance.”

    As for the negative views of those not doing their “fair share,” I assume this means the negative views of “free riders.” It is worth noting that cooperation tends to decay very quickly when there is no punishment for those receiving benefits without contributing (mainly because people tend to take advantage of the system). However, when punishment is employed, cooperation rises along with giving (see Fehr, Gachter, “Altruistic Punishment in Humans,” Nature 415. Jan. 2002). The reward regions of the brain are activated when the violation of societal norms are punished (see de Quervain et al, “The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment,” Science 305. Aug. 2004). As psychologist Jonathan Haidt explains, morality is largely the evolved solution to the free rider problem. Bad behavior should be called out, but appropriately: “Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy.” (D&C 121:43)

    I am convinced that the Lord is much more understanding and forgiving than some of our moralistic members view Him to be. Yet, I am also willing to bet He is much more hard-nosed and critical than some of our more “compassionate” members give Him credit for.

  32. One could say “good luck” with any system of government when the “voice of the people” choose to avail themselves of the largese of the treasury with little or poor judgment about the future. This poor judgment extends throughout Left, Right, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist, marxist or communist.

    One of the risks of any form of government (including no-government) is that people entrusted to make decisions will make bad decisions.

  33. One of the general risks in representative government is that when problems arise, the people will tend to shift all the blame onto the elected representatives, with little or no thought how the actions and character of the people themselves contributed to the problems.

  34. “I’m curious as to why you find the concept of “self-reliance” overrated…”

    Thanks, Walker, for the good question. I’m happy to share my view. After years of serious study and spiritual pondering, my own opinion is that the notion of “self-reliance” is very much the antithesis to the Gospel of Christ. I maintain that the Gospel teaches us to be communally reliant. Moreover, if a person is self-reliant, what need is there for Christ at all in the equation? I believe that a Christian is Christ-reliant and communally focused.

    Best,

    –DB

  35. Blake:

    “I didn’t expect you to see it my way — but I really object to this kind of wresting of the scriptures.”

    Blake, you said that you respect my abilities in “Near Eastern Studies.” That was kind. But, in reality, my degree is in “Bible,” as is my specific academic focus. Hence, “wresting the scriptures” is simply what I do. As a serious student of the Bible, I attempt to read the text from a historical-critical perspective, meaning independent of any contemporary theological lens, and instead, interpret the text through ancient Near Eastern conceptions.

    As one interested in theology, I then attempt to draw out application of spiritual principles and values for application in society. For me, scriptural analysis is not simply a side hobby I’ve adopted in addition to my career, but rather a major life focus.

    It’s clear that in light of our different backgrounds, we won’t see many issues the same way. Such is life. I would hope, however, that despite these differences, mutual respect and kindness could be shown rather than passing judgment on each other’s views as “idolatry,” etc when the opinion happens to differ from our own.

    I believe it’s alway best to give people the benefit of the doubt; especially those whom we don’t know very well.

    Best,

    -DB

  36. Do you object to Marion Romney’s version of self-reliance? To me, his version sits within a communal and Christ-centered context. He expands on the need for it in order to fully participate in the interdependent nature of sainthood. He uses self-reliance as a reason for the rich to assist the poor. Most who speak of individualism usually have the underlying assumption that there is always a social context. While some Enlightenment thinkers tried to wrestle the self away from society, most understand that it is impossible to do so. In other words, it “goes without saying.” One benefit of individualism, however, is the consistent reminder that groups are made of individuals (something that is easy to forget when talking in collective abstracts).

    But I’m a bit troubled by your view because this basically means that you reject a healthy portion of what has been taught by Church leaders over the past several decades regarding self-reliance. This isn’t some obscure, off-hand remark of anti-intellectualism that you can quibble about with no real stake in the matter (e.g. Elder Nelson’s fairly recent remarks in Conference about the Big Bang). These are fundamental principles regarding lifestyle and outlook. These are moral issues. This is why I’m wondering how you define “self-reliance.” Marion Romney’s version (the one I embrace) seems to fit your gospel requirement of communalism. But then again, I also reject some of your caricatures of market systems (which I see as a collective enterprise).

    If you think they are wrong, that’s fine. But why?

  37. To take it further, is all forms of dependence good in your eyes? This seems to throw out proper judgment and wisdom. I would argue that there is a difference between the necessary dependence on God and, say, a young man depending on his parents for financial support because he won’t (not can’t) get a job. I think it can be demonstrated that the good intentions of the latter can soon become destructive to his development and overall well-being.

    I’m all for taking a “we are all beggars” approach (humility is an essential element of successful business, believe it or not), but this seems to me disingenuous if that is the main criticism of Romney’s point.

  38. Was going to write “is every form” and changed it to “all forms” without adjusting the “is.”

    I is a college graduate.

  39. “But I’m a bit troubled by your view because this basically means that you reject a healthy portion of what has been taught by Church leaders over the past several decades regarding self-reliance.”

    No need to be troubled, Walker. I don’t reject such teachings. I accept that they serve an important purpose. Perhaps as an analogy, I might refer to an emphasis upon “self-reliance” as a Mosaic law. As Elder Romney taught in the quote you provide, a self-reliant Saint is in a situation where he or she can help spread the kingdom abroad. It makes sense, therefore, that Church leaders seeking to accomplish this important mission would emphasize this notion.

    But I personally believe quite strongly that we must eventually move beyond such conceptions and ultimately accept our total and complete dependence, not only on each other, but specifically upon the grace of Jesus Christ.

    Moreover, I have seen that a focus upon self-reliance, while well-intended, can often lead to a sense of entitlement in terms of spiritual blessings, as well as feelings of moral supremacy to those deemed less “self-reliant.” Again, on this issue, I would strongly recommend Timothy Keller’s outstanding book, The Prodigal God.

    It’s in this sense that I find the notion of “self-reliance” and the sometimes over-zealous emphasis some well-meaning Church members give the concept an “over-rated” perspective.

    Hope that helps clarify.

    -DB

  40. Right on, brother. Have a musician friend who was thinking out loud one day, stating that he saw Church leaders attempting to make us independent in order to eventually move us to interdependence.

    Thanks for the clarification. I have no qualms.

  41. “It would seem from my perspective, therefore, that LDS scripture suggests that governments have a God-given right to enact laws that will benefit society by attempting to eradicate poverty.

    More specifically, I believe that my comments raise an important question: Recognizing that a secular government is not the same thing as the kingdom of God, the question still remains, to what extent (if at all), Latter-day Saints should seek to implement this scripturally mandated assignment into their respective secular societies.

    To refer to this effort at dialogue on the importance of applying these scriptural precepts into secular society as an example of “idolatry” is not only unkind, but rather silly, to say the least.”

    Amen. What is the point of anything anyway, unless we are a light to the world? Of course it doesn’t mean what the late, great Viv Stanshall said here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T9OxsRJeNc
    In one of the EQ lessons I taught recently, I used my favourite Martin Buber quote, one that he adapted from the Hasidic master R. Elimelech of Lizhansk. I think it does a remarkable job of explaining what it is to be a light to the world.

    “R. Eleazar said: “The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, looked at the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Division and saw that their deeds were wicked, He concealed the light from them. And for whom did he conceal it? For the righteous in the future to come.”
    Hasidim asked: “Where did he conceal it?”
    They were answered: “In the Torah.”
    They asked: “If so, will the Tsadikim not find some of the light as they study Torah?”
    They answered: “They certainly will find some.”
    They asked: “If so, what will the Tsadikim do when they find some of the concealed light in the Torah?”
    They answered: “They will reveal it in the way they live.”

    If we don’t allow God’s light to influence our behaviour, to reveal itself through it, shaping the very way we tackle our lives and communities, studying scriptures is a waste of time. Social quietism is a very poor model LDS to follow. There is another Buber adaptation of a hasidic teaching which complements this one, drawing it closer to what I think you are talking about.

    “When Rabbi Enoch had said the verse of the psalm: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the children of men,” he paused and then went on to say:” ‘The heavens are the heavens of the Lord’—you see, they are already of a heavenly character. ‘But the earth hath He given to the children of men’—so that they might make of it something heavenly.””

    How can we become a Zion society if we wait for a later date? We ought to be making our communities as heavenly as possible right here, right now. Then we will be ready for Zion.

    Continuing with Buber, in his essay Hebrew Humanism, he pointed out that our external circumstances in a large measure reflect our inner ones. Of course this does not mean that we will always succeed to the extent we want. Be it democracy or be it dictatorship, there will always be failures to one degree or another; but we have to try. We can’t lay back and think there is nothing to change, that Caesar can have what he will.

    “The concrete transformation of our whole inner life is not sufficient for us. We must strive for nothing less than the concrete transformation of our life as a whole. The process of transforming our inner lives must be expressed in the transformation of our outer life, of the life of the individual as well as that of the community. And the effect must be reciprocal: the change in the external arrangements of our life must be reflected in and renew our inner life time and again.”

    Biblical Humanism, a similar essay by Buber, is a little dramatic, but gets the point across.

    “Biblical humanism cannot, as does its Western counterpart, raise the individual above the problems of the moment; it seeks instead to train him to stand fast in them, to prove himself in them. This stormy night, these flashes of lightning flashing down, this threat of destruction- do not escape from them into a world of logos, of perfected form! Stand fast, hear the word in the thunder, obey, respond!”This terrifying world is the world of God. It lays claim upon you. Prove yourself in it like a man of God!”

    I want my government in my society to reflect my ideals as much as possible. Else, why have a representative government at all? If others disagree, they can vote against it.

  42. It is not only proper for government to care for the poor, it is essential, even commanded of God

    1. There is no question that the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, warn individuals and societies of destruction for lacking to care for the needy, the infirm, the fatherless, widows; THE POOR.

    2. This commandment is one of the primary and defining tests of our mortal probation.

    3. We should embrace all appropriate means to obey this commandment.

    4. Using government, at all levels, is one of the most effective means of achieving this goal—of keeping this commandment.

    5. The United States Constitution, before detailing the powers and limits of federal government begins with the beautifully echoing pronouncement: “WE THE PEOPLE.” We are the government. We are self-governed. Government is not some “other” entity forced upon us and controlled by a minority or especially a plutocracy. At least it should not be.

    6. Since government is us, it should be, a government by, of, and for the people. Lincoln got this right, particularly right when the very government and union were near destruction. Does anyone disagree with that?

    7. How can we not, knowing the commandment to care for the needy, use every legal and effective means to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, succor the ill, and shelter the homeless. This includes attending to the sick via our modern and prevalent health care system.

    8. Government may not be the best way to do this, but it is a key way. If individuals voluntarily took care of such social problems to the point of their eradication, then, of course, that would be the preferred way. But, we unfortunately do not love our neighbors as ourselves, and therefore must explore other acceptable means of caring for the needy.

    9. There is concern that if we try to obey this commandment via governmental means, then our acts are not voluntary and, thus, not in keeping with the commandment itself. Some argue that such a forced approach is equivocal to Satan’s plan to force all to obey the commandments, thus robbing us of our agency.

    10. This position has little if any merit and borders on the absurd. We exercise our agency in creating and running our government and we decide its priorities.

    11. “WE THE PEOPLE” choose what to do with government. If “we the people” choose to obey this critical commandment, then government is not only proper, it is critical.

    12. Over and over again, Book of Mormon civilizations were ultimately destroyed because they, as a society, via their government, chose to “grind the face of the poor.” Civilizations today, likewise, will be held accountable for similar collective disobedience to this clear and constant command. America is under the same covenant as it was when the children of Lehi inhabited it. We will either reap the blessings or cursings, as a society under our self-government, depending upon how we use this tool of government to bless the poor.

  43. Allen is the Master. I read with my mouth hanging open, in abject awe. I am inclined to cover my mouth with my hands and kneel.

    But, I cannot leave without my passing judgment in my own way. It was said, “Returning to the issue of Mitt Romney and his political rhetoric on this topic, I know that when push comes to shove, Mitt cares about the poor.” I don’t know who he cares about, but please consider this. When I went through the Temple, I came to a point where I made a covenant with my heavenly Father to give all of my talents, time, and property to the Church for the building up the Kingdom of God. This covenant I made in the Temple of God before God, angels and witnesses. It is none of my business what God does with this consecration. (This, BTW is called the Law of Consecration.) He may even use it to build a 1.2 billion dollar City Creek Mall. I don’t begin to understand His ways. Anyway, I presume that Romney went through a similar Temple ceremony. This being the case, how in the world did he come to have 250 million dollars? Is the covenants that he made with God meaningless to him? How can we expect him to keep faith with the American people? Thankfully, we don’t need to wonder, the people could not believe any of his pledges.

    Why would I even mention this? Because, this a perfect example of fulfillment of the Book of Mormon prophesy that the righteous poor become rich, perhaps through hard work, and forget the God who blessed them, forget their covenants that they made with Him, and become a wicked people. How are they wicked? Because they despise the poor and withhold from them their succor. The BoM spells it out as cited above. Not only do they withhold from the poor, but they are in rebellion against God, by forgetting their covenants with God with regard to the Law of Consecration, etc.

    In this state of rebellion against God, they begin to think that what they built is theirs and not God’s. They love their possessions more than they love God, and seek even more and higher quality goods, and do not remember the poor. They (the poor) have a safety net for that (poverty, hunger, illness). The sin (according to the BoM)is in having more than they. The rich become lifted up and proud and look down on the undeserving 47%.

    The begin to teach of “the deserving poor” and “self sustainment” and “boot straps”, “self reliance” and such. “Why don’t they just go out and get a job?” Being “forced to pay taxes to support their lazy life style”. The poor being “welfare moms”. And, the President being “a food stamp president”, and a communist or a socialist.

    We forget the scriptures, the Gospels, Jesus Christ and his teachings. It was taught that if a man have two shirts. . . Or, if a man sue you for your shirt. . . Something about the eye of the needle and chances to get into heaven. Ever heard, “If you love me you will keep my commandments”? There is no mention of “deserving poor” or of Temple Recommends or worthiness. The message is to love your neighbor as your self. If you need Armani shirts, then distribute Armani shirts to all of the Poor. If you need a car elevater, then make sure that each of the poor have one also. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? You want to talk about incentive, but the Lord made no mention of this. Just give–no judgement.

    Do you want to talk about sustainment of such a policy? The eventual outcome, and losing primacy in the world? Jesus Christ did not talk about such things. Just love. Give. Do not judge. But, the Church leaders have taught in these last decades. . .

    Lets face it our leaders are following us into Hell. Their opinions are not God’s opinions. They are supposed to hold to the rod also. Their compromises to obtain state hood, further compromises to seat an apostle in the Senate, trying to win the respect of the world, gets them into a Stockholm Syndrome like affinity with the world. We have become them. The evangelicals have converted us to their religion and world view, and we have lost ours. Our leaders don’t even know. We have given up those things that were so precious to us those many years ago.

    Don’t the scriptures teach that charity is a personal responsibility? The do. And a collective responsibility also. Isaiah and Ezekiel teach that Jerusalem and Israel (God’s supposed people) were becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah. Why? Not because of gay marriage, but because of their neglect of the poor. Isaiah’s references to Jerusalem was not one of individules, but of a Nation. It was a national responsibility to care for the needy. We stand condemned of God as a nation and as individules. The economy can go to Hell if necessary. Jesus taught, take no thought of tomorrow.

    Allen is the Master here. I a poor student. Equally guilty of the sins that I have described as Romney who I condemn. Well, almost.

    Where can I find Allen’s teachings published? I want to learn.