Great insight as long as her artilce isn't a left handed jab at sharing
the wealth, rich people are evil and the rest of the liberal talking points.
She needs to couple her "insight" with the doctrines of family first,
agency, stewardship and accountabilty. When helping others is tempered with
the complete spectrum of doctrines of what is expected when helping and what
true helping is, then we can have a proper discussion. If we are
creating a dole society (dependent/idle/ full of mischief) with our
"help", then we are not truly helping but creating slaves to handouts.
Ditto JD Tractor: Therein lies the difference between Harriet Tubman and a host
of citizens today. Harriet did all of it without compelling, extorting, and
using the power of the government to do so, something many on the left are
determined to do so, using the the term 'social justice' as a rallying
point for compulsion. If anyone had a better cause to use the power of the
government, it was her. However, Harriet Tubman was a Christian first and
foremost and as such, using the power of the government to reach
'noble' dreams was indeed foreign to her. 'Social Justice'
is an excuse for a lazy person to gain power and take away individual rights and
responsibilities. Let's hope others can use her example to stop human
suffering without destroying the best means to do so, by invitation and
preservation of choice.
Noble concepts! Great article! Let's do something (LDS)!
We're so worried someone might take advantage of our help we're not
going to help, are we? Either that or make it so conditional as to be worthless.
Good chance to throw a couple rocks at the 'left' though.
JD Tractor and banderson,No problem with not creating a society
dependent on the dole. But let's be clear that Tubman was a strong
advocate of emancipation. And that meant govt. intervention that wiped away
vast sums of wealth (invested in the slaves).This is not an argument
for govt. taking over the economy or anything like it. And I certainly applaud
emancipation. But emancipation was by govt. fiat resulting in a tremendous loss
of wealth for the slaveholders. Unless we had been willing to do this there
would have been no freedom for the slaves. We could have purchased the
slaves' freedom which (would have been a huge wealth transfer away from
non-slaveholders) but it would have still required govt. to put an end to future
Twin Lights: I believe you are absolutely wrong. We lost over 600,000 citizens
in the Civil War because states weren't allowed to make that decision on
their own. Slavery would have died of its own immoral weight without a Civil
War that decimated and nearly destroyed our country. Words have meaning,
including our Constitution. Abraham Lincoln was definitely in a difficult spot
and humanity was suffering, including those caught in the institution of
slavery. However, had people stood up for a State to make their own decisions,
slavery may have lasted a little longer, but 600,000 people, along with the
waste and suffering that resulted in the Civil War, could have been averted and
that most prized possession, individual liberty in a civilized society, would
have forever been strengthened. Harriet didn't go to the government to help
people, she just went to work and helped, something many on the left don't
believe is possible. For them, the only good that can be accomplished must be
done through compulsion. That is as dangerous a philosophy as those who thought
slaves were just property. Different motives, same outcome, and loss of
liberty! Liberty is worth preserving.
Good concept, but why are my client's who are LDS going hungry and homeless
on the streets of SLC because they aren't righteous enough to get help.
Bandersen,Yes, a civil war was a lousy solution to the problem. The
death, suffering, and waste were phenomenal. But how does allowing
more generations of black families to be held in bondage strengthen liberty or
advance the concept of a civilized society? Isn’t that analogous to
saying that tolerating extreme criminal activity in one group would increases
society’s overall adherence to and respect for the rule of law? If you had been in slavery, when would have been soon enough for emancipation?
For you? For your children? Grandchildren? How many of your progeny should
remain slaves to allow states to eventually make the right choice?Why should the states have been allowed to determine if those in slavery
should have rights and liberty? Should your state be allowed that choice for
you and your family?I have heard the argument that slavery would
have died out on its own at some point. But though it was slowing down in some
areas, it was still going strong in others.
1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while
some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves
through with many sorrows."Many people believe that money is
evil. Not so. It is simply a tool. It is when the desire to accumulate money
becomes more important than seeking the glory of God that it becomes a tool of
JD: "insight" with the doctrines of family first, agency, stewardship
and accountability."There is no written doctrine, revealed by
Heavenly Father that says we should be concerned about the motives of the a
"beggar." The Lord warns us about such an attitude. Said He: "...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.For behold are we not all beggars?So, what if every
time we ask for forgiveness of our sins, the Lord question if we have, done all
of the things required of us, could we answer, yes? Remember that
you are also a beggar.
I hope that the author doesn't think that "liberating the captives"
doesn't include going around and overthrowing every malevolent government
in the world we don't like, as we have thought it does for the past decade
or so. Cause that's definitely not what Elder Christofferson or the Savior
himself meant. The rest of what she wrote about charity, etc. however, is true