Dilemma: Helping the Poor and Conservatism

[moksha]

I was reading about a member complaining of her bishop's stinginess with bishops storehouse food orders. I am curious about this. Does the Church give any directives about helping the poor and needy? Do they advise giving assistance sparingly or does a bishop's individual conservatism outweigh any Church desire to help those who need help?

[Rob4Hope]

its leadership-roulette.

I've known some bishops that will NOT give aid unless certain conditions are met--and I happened to agree with him at that point. Conditions such as:
1. you will attend church meetings.
2. You will participate in retraining activities to get your resume spruced up and some skills related to working.
3. You will follow a budget.

This seemed to 'weed out' those who just wanted a free meal.

There are extremes both directions: those who give it out without any thought of where its going or why, and those who would suggest giving blood for money! It goes from one-extreme to another. Depends on the leader.

[Corsair]

I've known some bishops that will NOT give aid unless certain conditions are met--and I happened to agree with him at that point. Conditions such as:
1. you will attend church meetings.
2. You will participate in retraining activities to get your resume spruced up and some skills related to working.
3. You will follow a budget.

This seems like a fairly even handed set of requirements. I had a very kind bishop in college who operated under the principle that widows and orphans should not go hungry. He was fairly generous including bringing donuts to PEC on a regular basis. In not unrelated news, he did develop Type 2 Diabetes in later years from this donut habit.

But I think he had a good point. The social safety net of the LDS church can't do everything, but it can at least prevent the poorest among us from going hungry. We were in a fairly poor area with a lot of trailer parks and fairly low income housing as befits most college students. I do not know the right answer to every potential case of need, especially when chronically unskilled, unemployable people exist. This is a really hard problem.

[FreeFallin]

Considering that the donations that support the church welfare system have come from generous, open-handed members, it seems right for the benefits to be generously offered to those who have need. Being conservative with welfare benefits seems rather hypocritical and self-serving of this very wealthy organization.

[Corsair]

Considering that the donations that support the church welfare system have come from generous, open-handed members, it seems right for the benefits to be generously offered to those who have need. Being conservative with welfare benefits seems rather hypocritical and self-serving of this very wealthy organization.

Good point. The real question is "what should we do as ethical humans that makes the most sense and relieves the most suffering?" I have talked to very kind people that give generously to "Doctors Without Borders" and "American Red Cross" because of their efficiency and effectivenes. But these same people will not give to a beggar on the street because of the high likelihood that this will contribute to further dependence and drug abuse. I can't argue against them. I had another friend that noted how the easiest way to donate to the working poor in the United States is to tip generously when you go out to eat. There are lots of viable, equitable, and efficient ways to donate.

When I was a ward clerk I audited the use of fast offering funds and consistently agreed with the decisions of my bishop on how the money was spent and who was receving it. Certainly I recognize that legally the LDS church makes no guarantee that they will use fast offering money for fast offerings. But it's not bad overall.

The real takeaway from this is to direct the money yourself and take some responsibility for who you are giving to. Donating with tithing distinctly goes against this philosophy.

[FoundMyOwnWay]

Considering that the donations that support the church welfare system have come from generous, open-handed members, it seems right for the benefits to be generously offered to those who have need. Being conservative with welfare benefits seems rather hypocritical and self-serving of this very wealthy organization.

Good point. The real question is "what should we do as ethical humans that makes the most sense and relieves the most suffering?" I have talked to very kind people that give generously to "Doctors Without Borders" and "American Red Cross" because of their efficiency and effectivenes. But these same people will not give to a beggar on the street because of the high likelihood that this will contribute to further dependence and drug abuse. I can't argue against them. I had another friend that noted how the easiest way to donate to the working poor in the United States is to tip generously when you go out to eat. There are lots of viable, equitable, and efficient ways to donate.

When I was a ward clerk I audited the use of fast offering funds and consistently agreed with the decisions of my bishop on how the money was spent and who was receving it. Certainly I recognize that legally the LDS church makes no guarantee that they will use fast offering money for fast offerings. But it's not bad overall.

The real takeaway from this is to direct the money yourself and take some responsibility for who you are giving to. Donating with tithing distinctly goes against this philosophy.

I also choose to donate to the American Red Cross, instead of giving to the beggar on the street. Part of my reasoning is the same as what you explained, and I also feel that since I only have so much to give I should try to make the most of it. I know the American Red Cross isn't some perfect organization, however I feel that they can do much more with my $20 to help the poor and needy than if I hand the same amount to some one begging on the street corner.

It really does depend on the Bishop/Branch President. When I was a ward clerk in a singles branch I remember how we used to pay for things I disagreed with. We actually would pay for one of my friends cell phone bills. This was years ago and he had 10 Gigs of data and a ridiculous bill to accompany it, at the time I had 1 Gig. There was another member who had his rent paid every month the entire time I was clerk. As far as I know there were no stipulations from the bishop. I don't believe there was ever any plan for him to be able to pay his own rent in the future, or if he was asked to get a roommate to ease the rent for himself. These were young college students and most lived with roommates.

[Thoughtful]

The handbook says members should go to family first, so I have seen many bishops tell members to ask family before the ward.

[RubinHighlander]

I had another friend that noted how the easiest way to donate to the working poor in the United States is to tip generously when you go out to eat.

This is one of my favorites. Having worked in the food service industry during my youth and college days, I empathize with the low ROI of those jobs for the effort they take.

Once I was unemployed for over a year during the last bust. My SP informally encouraged me to get assistance from the bishop with groceries from the storehouse, because he knew I was blowing through a lot of savings. I still never entertained the thought, just couldn't bring myself to do that, at least not until I was down to my last few dollars. It was interesting to me that I was perfectly okay collecting unemployment from the government, because I had paid into that system for so many years. Likewise, I'd paid the COB for 40 something years, yet I couldn't bring myself to get any of it back. I'd sure like it all back now! Except for the fast offering donations, I feel like at least some of that went to help some local folks that were struggling.

[Rob4Hope]

I'd sure like it all back now! Except for the fast offering donations, I feel like at least some of that went to help some local folks that were struggling.

I feel the same way--I wanted my fast offering money to really help. I've known some people who I loved, and I also saw them struggle. I put in extra money when I saw that because I knew they were being helped.

When that program worked properly, its one of the few LDS takeaways that show me that even things I consider really bad now, still had a little good in them.

Someone above said tipping at the restaurant is a good way to "give back". That is a really great idea. I like it.

I work right next to the homeless shelter in SLC. It's an ongoing problem, not only for them but for those who work in that area. Mental illness, drug abuse, and physical problems are rampant. Some of those folks are really just plain down and out...and in trouble. There are circulars going around all the time explaining that it is a BAD idea to provide handouts. It perpetuates a problem, and there ARE some resources that can help. These people, the ones I've seen over and over, are not starving.

Because of the circulars I've seen, I'm also of the opinion that one of the best places to donate is Red Cross and others that have been mentioned. But the church ain't getting NO MORE of my money. They can go feed some people themselves rather than building shopping malls and massive granite assembly halls.

[wtfluff]

When that program worked properly, its one of the few LDS takeaways that show me that even things I consider really bad now, still had a little good in them.

I've got to agree with this. Wasn't there a thread recently about not complaining about everything related to LDS-Inc.?

As Rob mentioned, this is one area where mormons do get it right, and they do get it right quite often. It probably has more to do with the mormons themselves than the institution that that they get their "name" from, but either way, mormons helping each other out when they are truly in need is a beautiful thing.

That being said... I am indeed glad that I did do a stint as a finance clerk because I knew after that "calling" that if they were ever desperate enough to "call" me as a bishop, I would absolutely say no; One of the reasons being that I wouldn't have dealt with the fast offering "decisions" well.

[mooseman]

Nm. My rant was pointless

[moksha]

I do not know the right answer to every potential case of need, especially when chronically unskilled, unemployable people exist. This is a really hard problem.

Some requirements listed above certainly would not work in all cases. Hard to require retraining for the elderly, the disabled, and children who comprise the bulk of the very poor.

That reminds me of the case of a social service worker demanding proof of disability for a guy that had to be brought into the office on a gurney because he had no legs, arms, and a thumb as his sole digit. When I heard that story I wanted to cry and shake my fists at the great bureaucracy in the sky. Fortunately, the nursing home where he lived was good about transporting him, since his favorite activity was hanging out in the Huddle at the UofU playing chess with a guy who would move the pieces for him.

I can well imagine it being a hit and miss for bishops in terms of empathizing with varied situations. I suppose most bishops would be happy that the guy I mentioned above was not a compulsive masturbator.

[Rob4Hope]

When that program worked properly, its one of the few LDS takeaways that show me that even things I consider really bad now, still had a little good in them.

I've got to agree with this. Wasn't there a thread recently about not complaining about everything related to LDS-Inc.?

As Rob mentioned, this is one area where mormons do get it right, and they do get it right quite often. It probably has more to do with the mormons themselves than the institution that that they get their "name" from, but either way, mormons helping each other out when they are truly in need is a beautiful thing.

That being said... I am indeed glad that I did do a stint as a finance clerk because I knew after that "calling" that if they were ever desperate enough to "call" me as a bishop, I would absolutely say no; One of the reasons being that I wouldn't have dealt with the fast offering "decisions" well.

I was a clerk for a little while in a "rich" ward. I saw some of those people putting thousand+ checks into Fast Offering. It changed my opinion of some of them there "rich folk" (I was the poor folk in that ward,..and I mean POOR).

I remember Ezra Taft Benson's talk on Pride. Some of that is good stuff. It has application.

Anyway, the only wards I am aware of that did good had tender-hearted bishops who wanted to help, but balanced that with requiring what was possible from the recipients, in an effort to help them move as far as they could toward self reliance. There were some extremes who just needed help. And where there was openness between the bishop and those folks, I believe correct decisions were made.

But like I said in an above post--its leadership roulette. You get a jerk leader, you get problems.

------------
Tangent:

As far as church discipline is concerned, there are allegedly 3 purposes: 1) protect the innocent; 2) help the person repent; 3) protect the good name of the church. I've seen leadership roulette (the wild-card in all of this) enthrone B@stards who were concerned about #3 ONLY! They could care less about the other 2. Seems like Joseph Bishop was enabled by some of that...would you agree?