My dear brothers and sisters, I have always loved the hymn “Have I Done Any Good in the World Today?” And particularly the words of the chorus. After several questions asking the listener to ponder if they have helped anyone today, the chorus admonishes us to “wake up” and stop focusing on our celestial reward and instead to look at the chances to do good that are all around us in this world.
Have I done any good in the world today?
Have I helped anyone in need?
Have I cheered up the sad?
Or made someone feel glad?
If not, I have failed indeed.
Chorus
Then wake up and do something more
Than dream of your mansion above.
Doing good is a pleasure, a joy beyond measure,
A blessing of duty and love.
“For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God” (Alma 34:12). In this life, we learn to live in a Zion society. In this life, we learn to live the two great commandments, and love God by loving our neighbor.
In the Celestial Kingdom, there will be no poor or sick among us. If we are to follow Christ’s teachings to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and administer to the sick, those actions must be taken today. Christ has no hands but ours. See Elder Uchtdorf, “You Are My Hands”, General Conference April 2010.
Know your neighbors. It is much easier to tell a friend you need help than to ask a stranger for help. To love your neighbor as yourself is to see your neighbor as your equal — someone deserving of dignity and respect. Do not judge, condemn, or withhold your help from someone because they may have contributed to their own troubles. As King Benjamin taught:
17 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—
18 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 4:17-18).
Imagine the joy of someone who believes he does not deserve help, and then to learn that help and love are unconditional! How much more we appreciate mercy when we know we are not blameless but are still loved!
And who are our neighbors? Jesus answered that question for us in the parable of the Good Samaritan. He told of a man who fell among thieves while traveling. The thieves robbed him, beat him, and left him suffering and dying on the road. The priest and the Levite passed him by. But the Samaritan stopped, tended to his wounds, got him to safety and paid someone to continue to care for him. Luke 10:29-37. Who was the neighbor to the suffering man? The one who helped him. Our neighbors are those who need a neighbor.
Brothers and sisters, the Lord has promised us that “The earth is full, and there is enough and to spare” (D&C 104:17). This world, created by the Lord, has enough to meet the needs of all of our Heavenly Father’s children. The Lord is saddened to see so many people suffer from want while others have more than they could use in a thousand lifetimes. Individual charity can and must be supplemented by laws and policies that are designed to help the poor and needy.
The Lord who fed the hungry would want us to share our deep beliefs with those who make decisions for our society, supporting those who will make it a priority to put food in the mouths of those who hunger, especially children and expectant mothers. [fn 1]. Feeding the hungry is a moral issue and any Church that bears the name of Jesus Christ will speak out on this issue until all are fed!
The Lord who healed the sick would want us to support elected representatives who will make it a priority to make health care accessible to all, not just those who are able to work full-time. How can a sick man work full-time? Heal his body and then send him to work! Every dime we spend on healing the sick will be returned to our society tenfold in the form of healthy people who can work. And let us not forget that unpaid work, such as that done by family caregivers, is every bit as important to society as paid labor. Never think that providing medical care to someone without a job is a wasted expense. Jesus Christ did not think in terms of investments; he thought in terms of souls.
How much suffering can we relieve in this life, my brothers and sisters? Think terrestrial! Do not spend all your time thinking celestial and neglecting the good we can do on this earth, now, today, while opportunities to do good surround us at every turn.
In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
——–
Commentary on President Nelson’s talk “Think Celestial”
In reading and rereading President Nelson’s talk “Think Celestial!” (October 2023 General Conference) I’ve finally concluded that it’s self-centered and that’s why I dislike it so much. There is not one word in this talk about reaching out to help other people. Instead, it’s focused entirely on personal righteousness, specifically, the personal righteousness that can be done in isolation.
President Nelson wrote this talk while recovering from a painful back injury. This increased his testimony of Christ:
“As I have wrestled with the intense pain caused by my recent injury, I have felt even deeper appreciation for Jesus Christ and the incomprehensible gift of His Atonement. Think of it! The Savior suffered “pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind” (Alma 7:11) so that He can comfort us, heal us, rescue us in times of need.”
At the risk of being irreverent, I note that Jesus Christ didn’t heal President Nelson’s back injury. He was still hurting. Instead, it was medical professionals who were working to comfort and heal President Nelson. Why didn’t he consider how fortunate he is to have first rate health care, paid for in its entirety? I don’t know how far down the hierarchy health benefits go for Church leaders, but I know the Q15 have 100% medical coverage, including a doctor’s office in the Church Office Building. Perhaps part of the reason the Church leaders live so long is not the prayers of the faithful, but the fact that their healthcare is close, convenient and free.
President Nelson nodded in the direction of some behavior that can be addictive or even harmful (“gaming, gambling, debt, drugs, alcohol, anger, pornography, sex, or even food”), but he focused mainly on culture war issues about sex and reproduction.
He said, “Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.” He also fed into the false teaching that people lose their testimonies because they want to sin. “For those who have made covenants with God, immorality is one of the quickest ways to lose your testimony.” President Nelson directed his listeners to link sexual and political issues: “Choosing to live a virtuous life in a sexualized, politicized world builds faith.”
And this is where we look at President Nelson in bewilderment. Isn’t the Church starting to get a bit concerned about the intersection of politics and religion? The Church keeps insisting it is politically neutral and that good principles can be found in both major political parties. But then the only political issues that make it into General Conference talks are ones supported by Republicans, like the Christianized laws about abortion, sex, and gender issues. Godless policies supported by Democrats like expanding social programs to care for the poor, sick, and needy never get mentioned in General Conference.
This talk was not only self-centered, it was political and cruel. His “think celestial” teaching aimed at the LGBTQ+ community is, “The best thing I can do for you is destroy your ability to love by drenching it in shame. You’ll thank me later.”
I choose to think terrestrial. Let’s make this life as good as we can. Let’s help our neighbors meet their basic needs. Let’s stop trying to legislate sexual orientation, gender and love, and instead legislate economic fairness and protections for human dignity. Joy and happiness shouldn’t be reserved for the celestial kingdom.
—-
[fn 1] In Elder Anderson’s anti-abortion talk, he encouraged voting for politicians who are pro-life. He said, “Let us share our deep feelings about the sanctity of life with those who make decisions in society.” The Personal Journey of a Child of God, Neil L. Anderson, General Conference April 2021. Sharing our deep feelings about the sanctity of life with those who make decisions in society apparently does not extend to food and health care, even though those are also necessary for life.
—-
Questions:
- In your opinion, why don’t Church leaders support social programs that would benefit the poor as much as they support legislation on sex and reproductive issues?
- Have you seen “Think Celestial” turn into a catchphrase with those around you? Are any of the ‘thinking celestial’ topics Christlike?
- What do you do to “Think Terrestrial”? How can we help people with their needs in this life?
- If this life is about preparing to live in a Zion society for eternity, then is personal righteousness or helping your neighbor more important? Are people assuming that, in the Celestial Kingdom, neighbors won’t need help anymore? This could be a whole post. There won’t be health problems in the Celestial Kingdom, therefore caring for the sick in this fallen telestial world doesn’t affect our eternal reward. Thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
I really cannot like this talk enough. This is excellent. I personally agree that thinking terrestrial or even telestial matters. Like, a lot.
As I’ve been thinking a lot about garment-gate, I’m landing in a somewhat charitable place for the faith’s leaders. I think they are at an age where they are reflecting back on their lives and realizing how good they had it. Additionally, they are probably aware of how difficult things can be for the rest of us (and I say this from a place of immense privilege). Inflation stinks. Interest rates for those needing to make large purchases stink. Wages stink. Insurance companies stink. Lack of support for working parents in the USA stinks.
They want to provide answers. So in looking back on their rather charmed lives, they simply take for granted that they raised families under a single income model where there was no housing shortage (thanks Blackrock and Airbnb), where they didn’t experience food insecurity and where life was simply more affordable. Instead they credit garment wearing and temple attendance and church service and paying tithing and ignoring the marginalized for their happiness, when they should be crediting general affordability and access to resources and their privilege for these things. So while I don’t agree with them, I think they come at their perspective honestly.
I wish there was a way to help them really see. But after David Archuleta shared his story that they simply don’t think he’s found the right girl yet, I unfortunately don’t think it’s possible.
Thank you, Janey — you gave me some good material to think about.
“How can we help people with their needs in this life?”
It really depends on who we are (strengths/weaknesses etc.), what phase of life we are in, and who the people we are aware of are.
Right now, I am in a phase of life where I can’t do volunteer work consistently. But I stay connected to the LDS community and I make sure that my teenager and I show up to help others at stake service activities. I donate everything that I can donate as part of “passing it forward” – because people have handed off stuff to me when I really needed it. I try to hand off useful information to people as I find them.
I do a lot at our home to teach my children specific values and give them a good environment to grow up in. I am not an amazing parent – there is a long list of “things” that I don’t teach my children, that don’t get done, places I don’t show up. But I am hopeful that I am teaching them enough so that they can identify and accommodate their personal needs as a start (and hopefully they will choose to be the kind of people who help others).
I am working at being aware of “judgement calls” that I make without realizing it. I am much more cautious to assume that I know “anything” in a specific situation (and hence are qualified to make “judgement calls”).
There’s a very simple reason that the Church doesn’t talk about “expanding social programs”. It focuses on encouraging people to act, not governments.
Look at the political stances that the Church has taken. For the most part, they are on things that will be used to directly affect the church. Going back to the 1990s, I remember talk about the possibility of a ruling on same-sex marriage combined with anti-discrimination laws being used to force the Church to either perform same-sex marriages in the temple or lose the legal ability to solemnize marriages, at least in some states. (I remember Hawaii in particular being mentioned, which would have affected many members throughout the Pacific at the time, not just in the US). The current political stances the Church has taken are primarily focused on “leave us alone and do not force things we believe to be immoral onto us”. The closest thing to an exception to that is Elder Anderson’s comments on Abortion, and even that is only encouraging members to take a moral stance on the issue, in keeping with the Church’s teachings.
When it comes to “social programs”, the Church doesn’t try to tell governments what to do. Instead it acts on its own. It’s donated millions of dollars to organizations like the Red Cross. It runs its own welfare operation, and makes regular donations of supplies from that operation to other entities outside of our faith. It organizes large-scale service projects in response to natural disasters and other needs around the world, and runs the Just Serve website to facilitate smaller service opportunities for groups and individuals. Basically, in answer to the question “What Would Jesus Do?”, the Church doesn’t say “Let Caesar take care of it”, but instead says “Go and serve others”.
What you seem to be upset about isn’t that the Church is pushing politics, because it’s pushed very little in the way of politics at all. Instead, you seem to be upset that it isn’t pushing politics, and especially not politics that you want.
I love every inch of your post Janey. I couldn’t agree more. This is central to my concerns with the church right now.
Like David’s mother it’s no heaven for me if my kids are excluded. I am thinking Terrestrial. I spend my time and money taking care of my special needs kids that are now adults. I want mercy from the government and church for them, but unfortunately, I have learned from personal friends struggling with disabilities and homelessness that help from the church is less likely than help from the government. It’s a shame the church is less Christ like in care of others because of our current political leanings and culture.
As Jesus said, let the dead take care of the dead. Actually, I don’t object to work for the dead in it’s place, but our care for the living should be central and things have got imbalanced with the church’s cultural focus.
It’s so nice to read thoughts just like mine Janey. I feel less alone in my efforts to care for my children. Thank you deeply for your post.
The message still does not resonate with me. I’m not sure I could teach a lesson with that talk as the subject matter. It just seems very “off” to me.
The part of the Good Samaritan parable I keep coming back to is that the only one to help (the Samaritan) is the very one the injured man (an observant Jew) would have avoided contact with entirely. Our true neighbors, then, include those we don’t want in our circle of friends and like-minded others. Yet Christian churches are excellent examples of “silos.”
Observer makes some good points. This is a tough issue. How much should the Church be pushing for legislation for social issues? We have made major strides against poverty in the US, in large part to bold legislation like FDR’s social security for old folks, LBJ’s war on poverty, and RR’s huge increases in earned income tax credits. There is a place for state involvement in helping people, but there are also abusers, people who once enrolled in a program and receiving benefits, sometimes by fraud, they’ll draw forevermore, and someone has to pay for it forevermore. Yes, look in some parts of the US and you’ll see that generational welfare is real. In the US, interest on the national debt exceeds what we pay for Medicaid or for children’s programs or for social security. So I am conflicted: yes to Government doing good, so long as it doesn’t create and engender unnecessary and permanent dependence, but we must also reduce deficit spending and reduce real debt so that we can do more good.
On the other hand, I think about what Jesus actually did when He was here. In his parable of the good Samaritan, we note that the state is absent. The actions of private individuals are examined, but the state plays no role. We are only told of two occasions where Jesus fed large groups of people, and the text of those narratives makes it clear that these were two exceptional occurrences–Jesus did not routinely pass out food, and people were expected to provide for themselves. When Jesus went to bed at night, beggars and children also went to bed hungry, and the sick in neighboring villages were not cured. He did not call for wealth redistribution, state-run social programs, or abolition of slavery. I agree with Janey that we sometimes misinterpret or mis-measure personal righteousness, looking at how often we study the scriptures or how much tithing we pay or how long our prayers are, when personal righteousness could perhaps be better measured by how much love one shows to a neighbor, or how much suffering one has reduced, or how much mourning one has done with those who mourn, or how much pain one has relieved.
People can do good individually. People can organize to more good as a group than they could do individually. But I’m not sure that I want the Government solving all of our problems. Government can also do much good, but crushing tax burdens, fewer taxpayers, and debt growing unabated (caused by both parties in power) will ultimately lead to default, and the Government’s ability to do good will decrease. On the question of what should the Church do? Well, in Jesus’ day, the focus was not on advocating for change in the Sanhedrin or in Rome, but it was on personal faith, repentance, and doing good. We should also remember the real story (not a parable) about the woman with the alabaster box of spikenard, very precious, which could have been sold for a year’s wages and the money given to the poor. Someone chastized the the apostles for criticizing this woman’s choice. I want my apostles to encourage people to do good, but good as they (the people) see it, and not as it is dictated to them by the apostles.
To all those saying you don’t want the government solving your problems, I don’t get it. My parents and mother in law are retired public school teachers. My brother works for the Bureau of Land Management. My brothers in law is are a retired Utah Highway Patrol officer and an elementary school vice principal. THEY are your government. They show up every day with the intent to excel in their jobs and to help those they serve. I guarantee you my family members are more than qualified to enact community programs that would lift us all. Prove me wrong.
As to abuse of funds, sure. It stinks. Interesting when we talk about abuse of funds nobody here ever mentions the lobbying racket and that billionaires use a lot of resources and never adequately pay for them. I would argue that billionaires are permanently dependent on a system where they don’t pay their fair share (and my argument is based on my experience as a tax accountant as much as it may be based on my political preferences). But sure, let’s focus on the family buying fruit snacks with their food stamps.
In California, there is a perfect opportunity for church leadership to “think celestial” and take action at the local unit level to assist in the homelessness crisis, as there is in fact a crisis in need of serious help. There is probably nothing they could do that would be more Christlike. Seems like a very good area of focus for, say, the North America West presidency, who are indeed concerned with issues at the local unit level, but as far as I can tell that concern is limited to putting women in their place by removing them from the stand for the sacred sake of “consistency.” Very celestial.
It is true that the church through the fast offering program helps countless individuals with food assistance, utilities, medical bills, etc. (subject to bishop roulette). This, commendably, keeps many who may otherwise slip into homelessness from doing so. The problem is that the way the church’s assistance program works (even if it is being administered “liberally”) is directly dependent upon any recipient having an actual physical address to which their membership record is attached. So, the assistance is (1) dependent upon the individual or family being church members, and (2) effectively excludes any individuals (even if they are members) who do not have a physical address, i.e. who are actually homeless. There is an institutionalized structural and administrative blind spot in the church’s system for people who are actually without a place to live and for people who are not members of the church.
To be fair, the church as an institution does donate large quantities of food and other goods to various non-profits/food banks/etc. around the entire state. The problem is that less than 1% of members in local units have anything to do with that. The vast majority of them do not even know about it. From an institutional perspective, the membership in local units are not encouraged to actually help homeless people at all other than very generic and vague references to help the poor and needy when the topic happens to randomly come up in a lesson that is peripherally related (a moral obligation that is considered satisfied by simple payment of a fast offering).
Given Jesus’ explicit teachings on this issue (to say nothing of King Benjamin’s sermon), if we are really Christ’s church, we should be leading the way on this issue, but instead the Church’s approach to it has the effect of distancing the members from any meaningful participation in actually helping the children of God who are experiencing homeless. This distance has the indirect effect of reinforcing in the minds of the members the unsupported myths about why there are so many homeless people here, and it results in the type of callousness toward the homeless that is condemned by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that is ameliorated by direct involvement with people experiencing homelessness.
Bottom line is the Church’s system indirectly creates circumstantial barriers to the individual members actually *acting* celestial by doing what Jesus taught on this subject.
One pattern of Jesus’ life that sticks with me is that he healed or comforted the people who came to him first, and only after that did he tell them to “go and sin no more.”
And I think we are all glad that it was Jesus, rather than current leadership, who was there when Lazarus died. He knew what He was going to do, but instead of telling Mary and Martha to “think celestial,” He wept with them first.
“In the US, interest on the national debt exceeds what we pay for Medicaid or for children’s programs or for social security.”
This is incorrect. Net interest on the debt is 7% of federal outlays. The category Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement, is 33%. The category Social Programs, including Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, unemployment assitance, housing assistance, etc., is 25%. National defense and Veterans benefits constitute 17%.
Chadwick,
The point I was getting at is that Christ didn’t teach people “Have Caesar solve the problem for you”. He taught people to act for themselves. The Gospel he taught was meant to change people on an individual and non-compulsory level.
Consider the attitude expressed by Scrooge in A Christmas Carol: “Are there no prisons? … And the Union workhouses? … The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then? … I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.” Scrooge was quite content to offload any and all social services to the government and pay for them grudgingly through his taxes. There was no need for him to do any more than that.
But that’s not the approach that Christ would have of people (nor the point that Dickens sought to get across in the story). The point of Christ’s Gospel is to change the individual, and to make the individual act in a more Christlike and charitable way. An individual who is following Christ doesn’t depend on the government to force others to care for the poor or needy, but they give of themselves to do so. It’s about the change wrought upon the individual in the decision to follow Christ.
That is what the Church encourages, too. And it leads the way in doing so, providing resources and opportunities to people to serve others, to uplift the needy and help those in need. The Church is in the business of saving souls, of trying to help work a mighty change on peoples’ hearts. You don’t do that through government services, but you do do that through encouraging individual acts of service.
This is excellent. I like the reminder that after this life we will lose our opportunity to help the poor. As I understand things, we can keep re-reading the BOM throughout the eternities. (But do we get to wear garments? Moroni apparently doesn’t . . . . Anyway, back the the real point ….) I have an addition on the good Samaritan reference. The “correct answer” to who was the neighbor isn’t the one who helped but the one who “showed mercy”. I’m not pointing this out to just pick and nits, but because for me, the appeal to mercy (unearned, regardless of what you’re wearing) strikes even deeper than just helping. Helping others is great. Showing mercy is, in my mind, something even more. (And certainly more challenging for me.)
As for social programs enabling people to fraudulently suck away the recourses of others. Yes, that happens. Yes, it is wrong. But I have come to the conclusion that the only way you can ensure that will never happen is to never help others. The person with their food stamps might be scamming the system. The pan handler might live in a nice house. The man on the road to Jericho might be faking his injuries to get a free meal. But refusing to help others because of the possibility of fraud is unacceptable. Reasonable measures to limit abuse of the system is a smart decision. But also, I’ve received unemployment, and applied for other government programs. There have been times where I spent multiple hours per week filling out forms, attempting to contact government offices and jumping through hoops to prove my eligibility. At times it feels like we spend more money on a fleet of office workers to prevent fraud that we would lose to the fraud itself, and that all of these hoops aren’t viewed by some as a just punishment heaped on people who have the audacity to be poor.
“He taught people to act for themselves.” How is a representative government not acting for ourselves? If we all decide as a community that we want access to clean air, water, affordable health care, education, and we elect and/or pay people to enact these programs, where is the compulsion? Where I see representative government, you see a dictatorship; why?
Forgive me if I’m blunt here but I’m extremely tired of the notion that government is forced and church members are somehow living some higher law where they give freely. I disagree. Government is not forced, but it does require compromise. Church members sometimes give under duress. It’s way more complex than government = bad and church = good.
Observer, I agree with your point that Christ’s gospel should be about changing people toward more charitable action. But the main point I take from Janey’s post is the same one that I have been bothered by after this recent general conference: our prophets seem to be far more interested in isolated, individual acts of devotion and piety, with an emphasis on the afterlife, than in how we show charity toward others right here and now.
You say the church encourages care for the poor and needy and leads the way, providing resources and opportunities. Really? I just don’t see much of that. Most service projects on behalf of the needy I have been invited to participate in by the church were organized and led by another, smaller, less wealthy church. When our youth were looking for ways to do service in the community, they were encouraged to help out another church’s soup kitchen and help clean up another church’s cemetery. We have a massive force of youthful energy in the form of missionaries who are supposed to do 4 hours maximum per week (compared with some 50 hours of proselyting?) of community service. I would bet many don’t do it, in part because the church has no resources or opportunities ready for them. And is anybody hounding them if they don’t? Not in the way they would be reprimanded if their proselyting hours weren’t up to par.
You could live your whole life as an active member, with weekly church meetings and temple attendance, serve in various callings, wear your garments, but never once give anything to someone who was poor, or fed anyone who was hungry, and you would be considered a celestial covenant path-walking person in the eyes of the church.
I don’t think that Jesus would have any problem with a group of people getting together and choosing leadership from among them (representative democracy) pooling our resources fairly (taxes) and using those resources to help the less fortunate (welfare, healthcare). In fact I think if Jesus were in charge, He would be utterly unconcerned with making sure that the rich have as few obstacles as possible toward becoming even more rich.
I understand that this paints a picture of Jesus that is not recognizable to republicans. Republican Jesus lives in a cabin, drives a pickup truck with a shovel and a hunting rifle in the back, and is always ready to give a helping hand. Republican Jesus is utterly unconcerned about what the powerful people in Washington are doing. Nevertheless, we know he still pays his taxes willingly (render unto Caesar), and I think overall he’d still prefer that those taxes be used for things he cares about, like helping the poor.
Government is inherently forced. All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. The IRS alone has over 2000 armed agents. Across the federal government as a whole (and not counting the military), there are close to 200000 armed agents. Those agents aren’t there to simply ask people nicely to obey the law.
And those agents have a history of going to excess in enforcing the law. That gives many people legitimate reasons to be wary of the government. Once you grant the government more power and authority, it rarely, if ever gives it back. And once it starts on the road to excess, it gets harder to reign it back in.
For example, last month the ATF conducted a no-knock raid in Little Rock, Arkansas to execute a warrant on Bryan Malinowski, which resulted in his death. They had him under surveillance and could have executed the warrant at his office, or any other place, and there was no need for it to be done as a no-knock raid (often mistaken for a home invasion). The crime he was alleged to have committed? Selling firearms without a license. Since then, the ATF has been resisting oversight of the raid from both Congressional and other officials.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. This is especially true when you start having people taking about voting to have someone else pay more in taxes to pay for programs. It’s easy to say Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk should pay more in taxes, but rarely do you see the same people advocating for increased social services calling for their own taxes to be raised as well. It’s almost always about making someone else pay more. That’s compulsion, not compromise.
Again, the Church isn’t focused on that. They are focused on individuals. That aren’t in the business of collective salvation. They are focused on helping you, as an individual, draw closer to Christ and become more like him. Government programs have little or nothing to do with that.
Per the article: “Right now, the Treasury pays about $2.4 billion per day, on average, for interest.” And that number is getting bigger every year. Imagine if we could turn some of that spending to social priorities! A country that is in default can’t provide social programs. This is off target of the original post, but shifting more responsibilities to the feds might not be in our long-term interest, unless they can do it efficiently (and history doesn’t augur well). In my comment above, I didn’t criticize FDR’s social security, or LBJ’s war on poverty programs, or RR’s EITC. I think we can do more, but we need to be smart about what we’re already doing. Regardless of what we ask the feds to do, however, individuals can still do good, either individually or as groups, and I think that this is what Jesus taught: we shouldn’t wait for the government to solve our problems. Individuals can do much good, and can donate to local or other charities who also do much good.
My source about the size of our annual interest payments is Any Way You Look at It, Interest Costs Will Soon Be at an All-Time High (pgpf.org) (www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/any-way-you-look-at-it-interest-costs-will-soon-be-at-an-all-time-high). The first chart shows interest in FY2023 as higher than medicaid OR spending on children OR income security programs. The last chart shows interest paid as greater than (a) social security, or (b) medicare, or (c) discretionary spending, or (d) medicaid, CHIP & Exchanges, or (e) other mandatory. Someone corrected me, but he aggregated where I looked discretely. I also did not write that we should spend nothing on social programs because we can’t eliminate fraud. Of course, my source could be wrong, but they did appear to cite a Congressional Budget Office report from February 2024. I did err by confusing income security programs with social security. While another chart does show interest payments exceeding social security, income security programs include SNAP (food stamps), the refundable portions of EITC and other credits for children, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, child nutrition, and family support and foster care. Thanks for allowing me to make the clarification.
Observer, I can’t agree that government is inherently forced and that all laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Our government, a republic built on democracy, can survive only when the great majority of its citizens live according to the rule of law. When Congress passes a law, they don’t need to send an agent with a gun to my house to enforce my compliance. We should comply willingly, and in our legislatures we get some laws that we like, and some laws that we don’t like, and we, by compact, agree to obey both sets of laws. Our government has gotten too big, and federal government has taken over where states should have the lead, I agree with you there. But I do not agree that it is force that compels citizens in our nation to obey laws. Most people obey laws because they see themselves as citizens and we understand the concept of the rule of law. When we see laws or government actions that we don’t like, we can work within the laws and within the system to try to make change, but we comply all the while.
“think celestial”
is something you say when you don’t have to worry about how you’re going to pay rent next month
and to the discussion of “the church stays out of politics”, how much did the church spend on prop 8?
the church is 100% willing to get into politics if its something about abortion or LBTQ rights, but won’t spend a dime on lobbying for workers’ rights, humane healthcare, wage stagnation, less dependence on fossil fuels, or a more peaceful foreign policy all which each make for far greater threats to ‘the family’ than LBTQ people or abortions
and they won’t, because a lot of the big fish in the church make their living from pollution, death machines, parasitic healthcare, and wage theft
I think the church has conveniently developed a distinction between what they think of as “political issues” and “moral issues”, which gives them a way to selectively enter politics when it suits them and ignore it the rest of the time. I think they would broadly categorize questions about how the government should use resources as “political” and how the government should regulate people’s behavior as “moral”. I imagine because much of the church leans conservative politically, a majority of the top leadership would be in favor of less government involvement in anti-poverty programs, but also its likely that they believe it’s not their job to talk about their views on such questions in public (a bit of a departure from Ezra Taft Benson’s philosophy on this). So, they don’t talk about it. They probably consider themselves to be doing their part for poverty via the church welfare program.
However, let’s note that in official training for local leaders in dealing with welfare needs, they encourage bishops to help people make use of available “community resources” where applicable. I think that’s an acknowledgment that the fast offering program has its limits in how much poverty it can address. Maybe it’s also an acknowledgment that some problems are too big to be solved by single actors no matter how wealthy they are.
But, speaking of wealth, that leave the elephant in the room: the big pile of wealth that nobody (apparently) in church headquarters seems to know what to do with. I would argue that if you truly believe (as I think likely many church leaders do) that private actors should be at minimum part of the solution to poverty, it does seem hypocritical to be doing nothing with your resources when they have wildly exceeded the most liberal interpretation of a “reserve fund”. They need to be leading by example and doing something. Let’s be realistic, the church can’t possibly address every problem that critics of the church think they should be solving with 100+ billion dollars. Using those resources well, by an international church in a big world with big problems, requires some thought. I hope there’s such thinking going on, though I don’t see any evidence of it yet. The longer the status quo persists, the worse the church looks by doing nothing.
“Government is inherently forced.” I guess that explains January 6th.
In general, the Church stays out of “politics” in the sense of not promoting or lobbying the government for specific laws, regulations, or policies. For the most part, the Church’s activities in that arena are limited to matters such as religious freedom, which falls into the category I mentioned earlier of “leave us alone and do not force things we believe to be immoral onto us”. Pretty much everything beyond that is limited to statements of the Church’s moral or doctrinal positions on issues, and that’s it. Actual political activity is left up to individual members according as they feel directed on an individual basis.
As for the “elephant in the room”, a large portion of that $100 billion is in real estate and held as a long-term investment for ongoing revenue generation. It’s wealth on paper only, in the same sense that my house has doubled in value since I bought it 8 years ago. That doesn’t mean that I have all that money where I can spend it. I’m not planning on selling my house and moving in the next decade or so, so all of that “wealth” is just on paper.
I’m not asking for the church to liquidate its assets into cash and spend 100 billion this year, just as nobody expects that of large philanthropic foundations, such as the Gates Foundation. Just like the church, those foundations also hold diversified portfolios of financial assets that can’t necessarily be liquidated immediately, and they generally use the interest on those assets to fund their ongoing philanthropy. The difference is that the Gates Foundation has stated goals for problems in the world they want to use their resources to tackle. You can agree or disagree with their priorities, but they have some. The church’s only stated purpose for its investments is having a reserve fund, something which they more than achieved 20 years ago. Now is the time to show some imagination. All I’m looking for here is evidence that they are trying to broaden their horizons. They could spend 5-10 billion annually on whatever goals they decide are important, and fund it using interest on their investment portfolio.
Janey: excellent post. I will be mulling this over for a while, and likely sharing the ideas with others when the topic comes up.
Dave W. is correct: qualifying and applying for needed benefits requires going through a Byzantine series of hoops, often discouraging (or preventing) individuals from receiving the very help they need. And a built-in cost for providing help for the many is some loss to those who abuse the system. In addition, tales of welfare queens draining the system are exaggerated, while the big waste often results from “professionals” milking the system (fraudulent medical providers filing false claims for millions of dollars).
For me, the “think celestial” means “think temple.” While that has its place, I’m for our spending our time helping living people, now.
Good discussion. I especially appreciate the civility in the points being made from different perspectives about the role of government.
I know someone who worked for the Church’s Welfare Services department for decades, and I was SO impressed with the scope of that operation. The Bishop’s Central Storehouses are really impressive. This employee had stories about when natural disasters struck, they would load up big trucks with generators, pallets of food, hygiene kits, shovels and tools, and set off for the disaster zone, knowing that there would be dozens or hundreds of people at local stake centers who would pitch in and unload the trucks and go to work. Fantastic stuff. Helping out those in need is Christlike.
There are problems that cannot be solved by individual action. For example, my friend couldn’t have driven a big truck to a disaster zone if the government hadn’t already built roads to the disaster zone. Also, a LOT more help came from the govt than came from the Church. The govt employs people full-time to plan for disasters and how to help. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, does the heavy lifting. Churches and individuals help around the edges.
Hunger is a problem that can’t be solved by individuals. Health care is a problem that can’t be solved by individuals. My political and moral beliefs is that all of society should pool their resources to help with these big problems, and I vote accordingly. Taxes are a pretty non-violent thing that depends on voluntary cooperation; I don’t buy the idea that’s coerced at the point of a gun.
Because the scriptures mention so many topics, Churches get to pick which ones they turn into important moral issues. I think (yes I know this is my personal opinion) hunger and health care should be important moral issues for Churches. Most Churches think reproduction and gender are important moral issues, though those issues don’t get mentioned much in scripture when compared to caring for the poor and the sick. (I wrote an entire post about how little abortion is actually mentioned in the scriptures. https://wheatandtares.org/2022/09/16/lds-and-pro-choice-the-bible/ )
I agree with Chadwick that the real financial/economic abuse of America is the billionaires who pay lobbyists to make sure huge loopholes remain in the tax laws. If you add up the people who cheat on welfare, and the people who, either legally or illegally, pay hardly anything in taxes, I believe the dollars of tax cheats far outweighs the dollars of welfare cheats.
Observer makes a good point about Christ encouraging people to act on an individual level. I wish we got more of that on my hobby horse issues, helping the poor and the sick. Imagine a General Conference talk in which Elder Anderson says, “I’m addressing business leaders today. Pay your employees more than a living wage; provide good health insurance. CEOs shouldn’t be making more than 15 times the wage of the janitor. If you’ve got recordbreaking profits, pay out bonuses to your employees.” That would be great if the Church encouraged that kind of individual behavior. It could lead by example, instead of pinching pennies on employee salaries (anecdotally, I hear this from Church employees).
I am wondering if the people who think the Church doesn’t get involved in politics are from Utah? Maybe that’s where my perspective differs. I’ve lived in Utah my whole life. More than 85% of the Utah legislature is LDS. Church teachings are soaked in our laws from the foundation. Pare Medicaid to the bone; make it really hard to get food stamps and free school lunches; cut the taxes spent on supporting disabled individuals; impose even more work requirements for people on welfare. Watching the LDS Republican Utah state legislature is actually what turned me into a Democrat. The whole idea that individual righteousness means you can tell the poor and needy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is very LDS and very political.
The leaders have long been more focused to maintaining individual commitment to the church. By focusing on issues related to sex, they stoke the fires that drive commitment to the church. They create a boogeyman of “the world” and scare members from it. People can’t be scared into taking care of the poor. That requires hard work and interaction with those of lower classes.
It is funny how much the pro-lifers thought they were on such moral high ground. And then they got their wish (in half of the states). Dobbs only emboldened the extreme radicals to yell and scream about how abortions should be denied to rape and incest victims and force women who have a medical need for an abortion to suffer nearly to death because of sepsis and other health problems because the doctors are scared of they’ll be imprisoned for doing an absolutely necessary operation. I don’t hear the church proclaiming victory so much on the issue.
On Think Celestial, my wife has a fridge magnet with that banal slogan. I roll my eyes at it every time I see it. Seriously is that all a prophet does? Sloganeer while the masses swoon with endless praise upon the mere utterance of meaningless platitudes?
Observer – “In general, the Church stays out of “politics” in the sense of not promoting or lobbying the government for specific laws, regulations, or policies.”
I’m calling BS on this claim. The Church does it’s best to “appear” that they are not promoting or lobbying, by having its members, dressed as ordinary citizens, coalesce and do the dirty work. Case in point, the Heber temple. Elder Anderson, in his conference talk, showed a picture of a bunch of kids gathered around the temple in support of its construction. What he didn’t mention is, how those kids got there, who asked them to be there, and that this was a lobbying exercise to combat local resident’s resistance to the LDS temple. Those kids didn’t get together on their own and decide to lobby, they were invited as pawns to get what the Church wants regardless of what the homeowners desire.
The Church also used the threat of massive financial resources to threaten Cody Wyoming into making concessions for the Temple in Cody, or risk bankruptcy. The General conference version of the Church is NOT the same thing that exists in downtown Salt Lake. They operate like any other extremely wealthy corporation, using their money to exert force in whatever way necessary to accomplish their goals. They are a bully, and they believe their ends justify any means. It’s quite sad actually.
Fantastic post Janey, I really appreciated this one!
Observer, comparing Scrooge’s punitive workhouses and debtors prisons to actual poverty-alleviation programs is some weapons-grade false equivalency. You are either breath-takingly ignorant of the viciousness and cruelty of laissez-faire Victorian England (the same people who killed millions in man-made famines across Ireland and India, all while the bumper-crops continued to be shipped back to England under armed-guard for trade on “the free market”), or you are arguing in astonishingly bad faith. In either case, you make it very easy to dismiss the rest of your comments.
It is no more coercive to use tax payer money to help the poor than it is to use tax payer money to fund the military, the fire departments, the police, and maintenance on roads and bridges, and for the same reason: they serve the public good. (Certainly supporting social programs for the poor is far less coercive than, say, pushing legislation to ban marriage between consenting adults, by way of example.) Society is obviously benefited when there are *fewer* people slipping into poverty and homelessness, not more. Furthermore, the rampant abuses that you claim run rampant in welfare-programs have always been grotesquely exaggerated. But even if they weren’t, to quote Brother Nibley: “Indolent and unworthy the beggar may be—but that is not your concern: It is better, said Joseph Smith, to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition.”
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are right, that we should be helping the poor solely through our own individual free-will offerings. That would of course be wonderful, but the obvious problem is that so few of us actually do; rather, most of us with the means to give to the poor instead “suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish,” rationalizing that “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–” to which King Benjamin scathingly declares “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.” This is the doctrine that Janey so desires to hear preached from the pulpit at General Conference instead–as do I. That really *would* be “thinking celestial.”
+1 On the church being involved in politics. They are and have long been very involved. Albeit subtly. Anyone remember Prop 8? Plus the religious freedom issue is extremely political. Aside from conservative restrictions against Muslims building mosques and being able to live without persecution, religious freedom really isn’t under any sort of threat whatsoever. The religious right is just mad that they can’t shove their religious beliefs down people’s throats.
Also it boggles my mind how anti-poor so many church members are, especially conservative members. It seems antithetical to what Jesus taught. Conservative members are of course very vocal in their opposition to government programs that help the poor. But if they’re against government help and they claim to be Christians, then it would logically follow that they believe in private initiative to help the poor. Yet even there, many conservative members seem reluctant to take that kind of initiative and do nothing but shame the poor and tell them that they need to work harder while they’re already working two minimum wage jobs. As my very conservative brother once scoffed, “stop being poor.” That seems to be a common attitude. The poor have nothing to blame but themselves. Too lazy, too ignorant. And you folks claim to follow Jesus?
@observer
Source? I know the church feared made slippery slope arguments as part of its justification for its opposition to marriage equality.
But for such arguments to be valid, one has to demonstrate how each step in the chain necessarily leads to the other.
In Canada, in the early 2000’s, a letter was read from the pulpit advising members to contact their MP’s, encouraging them to advocate against marriage equality. I was a child at the time, and didn’t understand fully what was going on, but I remember the fears surrounding the matter.
Marriage equality has been the law of the land up here now for almost 20 years, and no church has yet to forced by the government to marry anybody up here.
The church has long been an important functional actor in the securitization (and sometimes, desecuritization) of gender, marriage, and family.
Language is how we conceive of and detect ‘threats’. Securitization is the social process by which societies build new consensus on what is existentially threatened; what these threats are; and what extraordinary measures must be taken.
As per Michael C. Williams, there’s something ’Schmittian’ about this process- or at least how it’s been usually conceived of by socio-political actors- including some scholars.
“Sovereign is he who decides upon the exception,” and who is more sure of their exceptional decision-making power than a self-proclaimed mouthpiece of god?
The church is just (re)discovering now that is the audience, not the securitizing actors, who really decides what security is or isn’t.
Interesting take on temple attendance as a substitute for Christian service among the living. I can see where temple building, emphasis, etc. can lead to an out of balance perspective.
Back in my boy scout days, yeah, those days the Church still had another program that promoted the boy’s rite of passage. Stay with me for a minute, I promise this ties back into “thinking telestial”. Accept, boy scouts mostly proved to be yet another way for our poor Mothers to be overburdened with helping, or should I say completing, the group validating task of becoming an Eagle scout. They say, whoever they is, that wherever there is an Eagle scout, there is an exhausted Mom.
I didn’t have that Mother however, not because she didn’t love me, but because she refused to achieve something on my behalf so we could appear to be valiant Mormons. And so, I was known affectionately as “Todd the tenderfoot”, the scout who stirred the fire with a plastic spoon. I didn’t get my Eagle, but I attended every scout camp, participated in outings and I think I got my horsemanship merit badge three times (you can see why I wasn’t an Eagle scout, very poor planning). I did however, learn some useful values and skills. I remember hearing as we would pack up our campsite, “Leave the place better than you found it”. The leaders were attempting to instill a level of care and sacrifice for those who would use the campsite next.
Leave the place better than we found it, that, I think is what thinking Telestial or Celestial means. Jesus’ ministry introduced a different idea about morality. Instead of being measured by adherence to a set of rules, it was something we might say is a positive good. It’s not merely a matter of avoiding the bad, but a devotion to seeing the opportunity to make things better. It seems that our LDS curriculum is almost entirely focused on the afterlife, making this life, the nanosecond that it is, a tiny lily pad, albeit a critical one, in the vast pond of eternity. Our hope is caught up, not in creating a better world, but following some ritualistic program to escape the one we currently inhabit. While I certainly hope there is life after this life, I just don’t know what awaits me when I die. And although I don’t know for absolute surety that “my life” continues after I die, I absolutely know that life itself continues after I die. Life is Eternal and what I do now matters to the life that continues after me, so I am working at trying to leave the place better than I found it.
No discussion about the national debt is complete without including taxation.
Funny (haha) when politicians complain that entitlement programs cost us too much, then turns around and cuts taxes on the ubër wealthy and corporations (in 2017, the cut cost over $1.7 trillion dollars ($1,700,000,000,000); cut capital gains taxes; continue subsidizing oil corporations, the coal industry; etc. etc.
People who work for a living earn a living wage (but often are not paid a living wage).
Blaming the national debt (which IS concerning – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has called us out on it) on those whose labor I’s their capital is disingenuous.
I love this analysis. And “think terrestrial” is going to make me happier, more giving, more Christlike, more useful
Wow
JB, good point that people don’t regularly donate to people with needs.
Additionally, to adequately provide aid to people with disabilities, veterans, seniors, pregnant women, etc., we need:
-a stable platform
-fairly approved qualification criteria
-uniform application
-the aid needs to be consistent to be effective
-regulations, appeals, and oversight
I notice that those who complain about entitlement costs don’t offer alternative solutions. They seem mostly to just plan to eliminate the social safety net.
Since Trump has already floated cutting Social Security, many people may be in for a rude awakening if he is re-elected.
Healthcare is another point Janey brought up. I don’t get it when people prefer that such an important need be provided by their boss. A bad boss is common. From the employer’s perspective, it’s a large expense.
From labor’s perspective, the boss often chose the cheapest option, which prior to the ACA, had some large flaws.
From labor’s perspective currently, the boss can use insurance costs as leverage (like part time employees paying higher premiums).
JB, good point that most of us don’t give to people in need.
Additionally, to adequately provide assistance for pregnant women, people with disabilities, seniors, veterans, children in families with low income, etc., there needs to be:
-a stable platform
-fair qualification criteria
-consistent, reliable aid
-fair application/approval/appeals
I notice that those who complain about the cost of entitlement programs don’t offer alternative solutions. They seem to want mostly to cut/eliminate the social safety net.
And they don’t want to create equitable taxation policy.
I have come to the conclusion that the church has no control over my own choices to serve others, and I can choose how I spend my time, money and abilities. I don’t wait for the church to organise that, or indeed give me permission. I also notice that others have come to the same conclusion, and often come across members in my community contacts. Decent people do good works.
Though I am not active, I still receive regular emails from our EQ President. There’s lots of comments about going to the temple more frequently, keeping our covenants more faithfully, etc. So it’s downright weird when I pass the church building on Sundays and instead go help provide lunch to the underpriviledged. I’m not judging, but I know that the leadership would say I belong in church, that I’m turning my back on those covenants. That my “sinful” behavior has led to the loss of my testimony.
marksmyname: There is a Twitter trend among post-Mos that I personally find appealing in which they post the “sinful” ways they spent their Sundays, which are usually anodine, family-centric, and occasionally joyful. By contrast, a lot of church-going days are just boring and take up a bunch of time in the same old checklist-mentality, being asked the same questions and socially pressured to give the same acceptable answers. To each his own, I guess. But I personally find it more appealing to see how the majority of post-Mos are just normal people, still interested in good works, and not out celebrating their newfound freedoms with hedonistic abandon. Nothing against hedonism. I just hate when the deznats are right, but from what I can see, they are mostly wrong about what Post-Mos are up to.
Thank you for speaking for the homeless. What the church does is refer the homeless to the transitional bishop, who is a busy regular bishop of a regular ward, who also administers to homeless people for a month before it rotates to another bishop in the general area. It is an ineffective system. I have a friend who is transient who keeps in touch with me about her struggles. Often bishops are suspicious of people who need help, imaging it’s their own fault and withholding help from them.
My friend is disabled and doing the best she can, but proving it to each new bishop is a humiliating experience. I am convinced our handling of this issue isn’t according to the scriptures.
Because my children have disabilities this is a personal issue. I have no confidence the church will help them when they stand in need. It’s an awful feeling.
I would love to help the church build and staff a family centered homeless shelter in every neighborhood. I would believe they spend the tithing on that instead of temples.
lws329:
Strange that my comment that was submitted on April 19 only just appeared today…
Thanks for your thoughts. Problems I see with the transient bishop system are:
(1) It only serves those who know about it or happen to stumble upon it by circumstance – there is no outreach to the homeless at all, you are just lucky if you happen to know about/find it. I have a hard time believing that system is the result of “thinking celestial.”
(2) There is a limit to how much transient assistance one can receive – bishops are not supposed to pay for a place to live for more than a few nights, which is not actually going to help the person/family. (If you have a super adept bishop, he might know to connect aid recipients with local resources that are more long term, but in my experience that is very rare.)
(3) At most, the only people in the ward who are involved in those transient instances are the bishop, a counselor, maybe the EQ president (or a counselor) and/or the RS president (or a counselor). The limited number of people involved speaks to one of the problems I identified in my original comment, which is that there is no regular involvement of the ward members with the homeless. The way the system is set up, they are steered away from such involvement. It just seems to me that The Church of Jesus Christ would be set up in a way that facilitates that kind of involvement instead of the opposite.
lws329:
Strange that my comment that was submitted on April 19 only just appeared today…
Thanks for your thoughts. Problems I see with the transient bishop system are:
(1) It only serves those who know about it or happen to stumble upon it by circumstance – there is no outreach to the homeless at all, you are just lucky if you happen to know about/find it. I have a hard time believing that system is the result of “thinking celestial.”
(2) There is a limit to how much transient assistance one can receive – bishops are not supposed to pay for a place to live for more than a few nights, which is not actually going to help the person/family. (If you have a super adept bishop, he might know to connect aid recipients with local resources that are more long term, but in my experience that is very rare.)
(3) At most, the only people in the ward who are involved in those transient instances are the bishop, a counselor, maybe the EQ president (or a counselor) and/or the RS president (or a counselor). The limited number of people involved speaks to one of the problems I identified in my original comment, which is that there is no regular involvement of the ward members with the homeless. The way the system is set up, they are steered away from such involvement. It just seems to me that The Church of Jesus Christ would be set up in a way that facilitates that kind of involvement instead of the opposite.
this comment system hates me