Philanthropists eye LDS model of self-reliance

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.

  • Jiggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 6, 2011 2:44 p.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska

    Imagine if you had a corporation where the business model was to have your customers give you 10% of their income every year, and all you primarily had to provide in return were the buildings to meet in, a few social programs and some speeches made periodically by the owners. Just how phenomenally profitable would that corporation be?

    Why does there need to be a corporate side? Why does the church need to buy malls, hotels, restaurants, condos, ranches, farmland, Oahu land, resorts, TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, and insurance companies? How does owning these things contribute to the missions of the church of Christ-centered entity, perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, and preaching the gospel?

    Although technically the funds may come from the profits of the church-owned businesses or merely from the interest on its enormous investment capital, where did the money come from to buy the businesses, stocks and other investments to generate those profits? Everything the church owns ultimately came from money donated to the church by its members - past and present.

    The church should keep enough funds invested to keep it sound, but is billions invested in businesses what Jesus intended?

  • nehimomma Parsons, KS
    Dec. 6, 2011 1:30 a.m.

    Just because you file for bankruptcy doesn't mean you don't pay your debts. Many folks that don't give a crap would be more then happy to just ignore there debts and let them pile up. Someone that actually is concerned is more apt to file bankruptcy, if you file chapter 13, you still have to pay your debts, it just gives you relief from the interest. Also Utah has a horrible medicaid system for there disabled, one of the worst in the nation, expect a large percentage of those that file for bankruptcy to have a lot of it to be medical debt.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 5, 2011 1:52 p.m.

    You may have a good point. The micro-credit systems that work overseas maybe could be implemented in the US. Sadly some things dubbed as "micro-credit" are not worthwhile, so before you support a specific organizations investigate their practices.

    I think though that micro-credit is a place where people should become involved on a self-initiative basis. Joseph Smith had the experience that as prophet and store owner, he failed at the latter. If he did not give credit, people got made at the Church, and if he pressed too hard for repayments the smae occured. The Church always puts itself in a potential bind of people being made at methods of getting money back when it gives a loan.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 5, 2011 1:46 p.m.

    I would also point out that bankruptcy rates are effected by state laws. States like Utah that make it easier for creditors to garnish wages have higher bankruptcy rates because there is a higher incentive to get formal debt relief. In other states it is easier to just ignore creditors for longer periods of time.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 5, 2011 1:42 p.m.

    From my experience with going with the welfare truck driver the emphasis is clearly on encoraging people to take steps to do as much work as they can. They are expected to proactively find ways to take the relief from the distribution point to their homes.

    Beyond this, I have no idea what assistance anyone recieves from the Church.

    It is clear the Church gives much more assistance to the poor and needy than some of its detractors will admit, although it is probable we could do much more to help the poor and the needy.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 5, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    I would severly discorage people from attempting to claim they understand the conditions and states of those recieving help from the Church. Who are any of us to judge that some of the poor are not "deserving" of aid?

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Dec. 5, 2011 10:31 a.m.

    Why is there always so little actual "reason" coming out of the "Voice"?

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 4, 2011 4:29 p.m.

    Joggle: There are some principalities that the Church has that are not based on the religion. What you fail to understand is that there is a business side that is run by the Church that doesn't belong to the membership itself. This business side is just like any other business across the country. This company basically owns assets that are used for different types of business. The Deseret News though a newspaper is owned by the Church. However, it is still a business. It pays taxes and has employees that are paid just as any other business. The Mall you cite is not being built through any of the funds/donations produced by the Church. This mall is a BUSINESS ventor to beautify the downtown area and to revitalize it. It will provide needed jobs and a facility to shop. It is a business.

    However, the donations, the welfare buildings and etc. are NOT part of this so called business. You seem to want your cake and to eat it too. Again you know nothing about the LDS Church except what is strictly an opinion just as those journalist have an opinion.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 4, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska doesn't make it false either. Just because a person is not "of the religion" doesn't make their opinion false. Often a source outside the Church has a more unbiased opinion than a person who refuses to look at what is obvious. If it takes being LDS for an opinion about LDS to be true then I could just as well disregard your comments concerning my beliefs based on the same premise. Your argument still fails to address the wealth of the LDS Church compared to what it gives out in charity and welfare. Afterall they do have vast assets that have nothing to do with religion.

    @very concerned

    I acknowledged the need for chapels, temples, MTCs, family history centers, and visitor centers....which includes spiritual concerns. Those are the ecclesiastical assets. However, in my opinion, the non-ecclesiastical assets (such as the Mall to name only one among many) and the money they represent could be better used for welfare and charity....which I believe is usually a main focus of most churches. It's easy to see that the Church is very wealthy and the assets often don't maximize those assets toward helping needy people.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 3, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    Joggle: I just love it when someone uses a book written by a journalist that is not LDS but someone who tries to incorporate something that may or may not be true. Then you take what they say as if it is fact. The problem is they know no more about what is said or how the funds are used than anyone outside of the LDS Church. You are basing your whole opinion on the opinion of a PROTESTANT journalist, who is not even LDS. You want me to sit here and say they are right. The answer to that is no. You should really look at it from our stand point more than an outsider looking in. They are a journalist who is looking at everything from a journalistic mind and not the MIND of the Lord. Until you can do that don't try and mention what they said as fact because it isn't. It may appear such and may be good reading but that doesn't make it true at all.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 7:48 p.m.

    Joggle, you make a good point about debate and logic. Perhaps let me present a few points as I see them.

    I dont claim to speak for the church. These are just some personal thoughts. I dont intend to wax religious either, but one has to speak of spiritual things in order to accurately explain the churches position.

    The church chooses to put so much money into temples, buildings, and missionary efforts because (I submit) these are just as important as welfare efforts in improving peoples lives by bringing them to Christ. That is the stated goal of the church and its threefold mission. He who has eternal life is rich (speaking spiritually). See Doctrine & Covenants 11:7 and 6:7.

    Buildings and temples provide a haven for invaluable instruction and ordinances. Missionary work is meant to extend those blessings to all people throughout the world. In general, the church has business interests that support its missions. For instance, it is not a long jump to see how food resources such as large farms help support the welfare program.

    The church is interested in peoples spiritual health as well their physical welfare.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 6:24 p.m.


    You said, "My statement is concerns the difference between what the Church brings in compared to what it puts out in charity including welfare. The Church is wealthy, right? Christ taught that..."

    There is a problem in examining the church this way. The LDS premise is that God reveals, no? Well, this program is inspired. Let's just presume all LDS teachings true to make this point.

    Joseph Smith translated. We know this. BUT what many forget is that his powers to act on behalf of God were only as strong as his faith and righteousness, etc. (at least to an extent anyway, I don't presume to understand this completely)

    So, the LDS welfare system is inspired. But, it is only as functional as we as a people are righteous and faithful. So the mentality that 'the church has resources it COULD be using' may work for other religions as a valid criticism. But according to our doctrines, the only welcome criticism isn't "you should do this" as we believe in revelation from God, not you. RATHER, if you say "you could be doing more, or be better" while people may still disagree, I think less hostility would surface.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 3, 2011 4:13 p.m.

    As I understand it, any activity that is not concerned in the Church directly with religious-related undertakings pays taxes, etc., for one, so it benefits the part of the community in which it is located. Secondly, it also uses its profits to benefit the Church, which, as a business, it can do--after all, as a business, it is free to do whatever it wishes with profits. Third, the LDS Welfare Program, by NOT making public recipients' names, is giving them some dignity as they become as much as they are able to care for their own needs. Not all can, true, but every bit of independence is a gift that is priceless! And maybe it doesn't make those who want names, dates, and places happy to not be able to quantify this program, it certainly makes a difference to the participants, who can take part in their wards, branches, and stakes with their self-confidence intact, thanks to a Heavenly Father's welfare program that does not take that from them. Please recall, money is not the root of all evil, it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil. Thank you.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 3:44 p.m.


    I admit I'm critical of the LDS Church. I'm critical of organized religion as a whole. Religion is not so sacred that it can't be criticized. I've learned many thngs about the Church directly from people who are active, inactive, and former members of the Church. Every opinion I present has a supporting basis. My criticism is directed at the Church as a whole and not at any specific member or person. However, on the other side of the coin....I frequently get predictible personal attacks or false personality assessments....instead of opinion or debate based on reasonable arguments. None of you need be offended, but I do expect a reasonable arguments with a supporting basis! Please try harder!

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 3:14 p.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska, Give Me A Break, JNA, Alberta Reader

    Where did I say that the LDS Church didn't help the needy? I know it does. I know how the Church works. My statement is concerns the difference between what the Church brings in compared to what it puts out in charity including welfare. The Church is wealthy, right? Christ taught that one should sell all that one has and give it to the poor. While that's not practical, why couldn't the church sell its non-ecclesiastical assets and help the poor more than it does? Does the church really have need of anything other than chapels, temples, MTCs, family history centers, and visitor centers?

    "Thoughtful saints might wonder whether the church should spend more of its assets on programs that benefit the membership rather than further enriching an already huge financial base." P119_Mormon America_Richard Ostling

    "The wealth moves generally in the form of building projects and not, as one might expect, in welfare from congregations in the United States to congregations overseas." P126_Mormon America_Richard Ostling

    Otherwise, I just false personality assumptions, preaching, and lecturing me about the Church! All very predictible! Hugs are wonderful and I get plenty! Thanks_anyway!

  • Alberta Reader Salt Lake City, utah
    Dec. 3, 2011 10:13 a.m.

    You. Are 100 percent predictable in your comments
    Each and and every time
    You should take up the offer for a hug

  • Give Me A Break Pullman, WA
    Dec. 3, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    You guys make me chuckle. Here is something really good in the world. Let's see if we can tear it down lest someone think good of the Mormons.

    In reality, the LDS Welfare System is not perfect, but it blesses an incredible number of lives both in and out of the LDS Church. It fosters self-reliance. It lends temporary aid to the poor. The entire world needs to know of the good that is being accomplished here and because of this conference and this article, many more now have a clue. Get over it. This is blessing lives worldwide. Thank you for what you do.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 8:13 a.m.

    Joggle: I respectfully disagree with your statement, Too bad wealthy religious organizations do so little in comparison to their wealth. Sure it's a good model, but does the LDS model itself really help all the people it could?

    I propose that the church does help all it can and more. But first, the person has to want help. Then he or she has to go to the bishop humbly, and then the bishop decides how to appropriately help the individual. I dont have space to even begin to cover the churches large humanitarian effort. And, as it should be, welfare help is private, so we (the public) really dont have a handle on how much the church really gives.

    The church spends the Lords money according to divine revelation, not popular ideas. I think the upshot is that the church chooses to help in this way because it is the most effective. With due respect, The Lord is pleased with the organization as a whole, maybe not the individuals, but the church as a whole. See Doctrine and Covenants 1:30. I most strongly disagree that there is something wrong with the organization as you state.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:17 p.m.

    Joggle: If you knew anything at all about the orginization you would know that what you are saying is totally incorrect. If you care to check you will find that 13million dollars was donated for humantarian relief for Katrina. Read more and you will find that more than that was utlized for relief help for the tsumani in Southeast Asia and around the Indian Ocean, for earthquake relief in Chile, Japan and else where. There is still relief efforts for Haiti, Japan and others going on all the time. So where does all that money come from. It comes from the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints through fast offerings and humanitarian donations.

    Fast offerings as all other donations are used specifically for that purpose to assist with helping the poor and needy. By the way the poor in this means both temporally and spiritually. I've seen thousands spent for this purpose in our branch alone. Now I ask, how many of those on these boards who are bashing the LDS Church have contributed anything at all to helping those in need. You for one I bet is not much if any.

  • JNA Layton, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 8:09 p.m.

    Hey Joggle,

    Does someone need a hug?

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:59 p.m.

    dalefarr, 1:23 p.m. maybe that's part of why poor people have trouble finding jobs. When being poor makes people think you need to be drug tested before receiving help (implying drugs and booze are why you're poor) and you are lazy and won't, can't, or are avoiding work, and if you hear, read, and see enough of that kind of attitude, can you imagine what happens to a person's mind? It takes a lot of mental self-innoculation against that kind of thing to go and do what needs to be done. Lately, many companies have been unwilling to hire anyone without a job. It's not a pretty picture!

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:48 p.m.

    Too bad wealthy religious organizations do so little in comparison to their wealth. Sure it's a good model, but does the LDS model itself really help all the people it could?

    I just see this article as self-admiration and pridefulness concerning the welfare model of the LDS Church....just like so many of the other articles by Deseret News. Oh....let us pat ourselves on the back....again! A perfect is not! And become a basher if you point out faults, disagree, or have a different point of view. So whose bashing who? LDS bashing LDS....Houston....I think there's a problem....with the organization!

  • JRJ Pocatello, ID
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:12 p.m.

    WHY do people have to complain about a good program? I'm pretty certain the Mr/Ms Toronto was not the only person on tour of Welfare Square. Does Mr/Ms Toronto also have something to do with the Lemonaide stand business opportunity and the other places they visited? The church does a good job of helping others help thand accomplished from a feeling of wanting to help others. And that's the reason the government could not possibly make the same program work. They dangle money in front of the noses of those doing the work to the point of making everyone greedy.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:11 p.m.

    In Placer Co., recipients of general relief (GR) were, if they were not disabled, required to work for their benefits. While applying for SSI, I was one, and proud to be working--and sorry when they told be to quit. I'd have stayed, except I knew someone else needed to be there to fill their requirement. The work I did was at a homeless program, where the residents were helped, but also charged a small amount of "rent" to give them the feeling of paying for their assistance, and given requirements to meet in order to stay (the program's success is in the 90%+ range; I keep tabs on it). I would imagine that this is a microcosm of what takes place, and although it may not make the news, perhaps it is common enough that it is not that newsworthy. I truly hope so. Since none of us can lay claim to have been everywhere, perhaps we should quit generalizing. You know what they say about those who assume...

  • washcomom Beaverton, OR
    Dec. 2, 2011 6:25 p.m.

    Personally, I'd like to see micro-loans available within the US for those that need a hand up to be self-reliant, as many people are unable to tap into the loan business until they have some money upfront. Seeing that firsthand with some people I know.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    Often times I read an article that is so positive and encouraging that (before I look at the comments) I wonder how anyone could criticize. But yet, most of the time I am disappointed that fault-finding is exactly what takes place.

    A church, an individual, or any organization, that helps the poor and teaches self-reliance should be applauded. I marvel that people would want to denigrate such an entity (or a report on it).

    There is much that is bad in this world. Let's give a little slack to someone, anyone, doing good, please. People working to improve the world need all the encouragement and assistance they can get. And that's what it is, work. It is work and resources being put to use to help people in need.

    Temporary jobs do help. Teaching welfare principles also helps. By the way, I think the fruits of the system are only fully known to those who use it and those who administer it. In other words, those who see it up close and personal.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 3:03 p.m.

    Dadof5sons | 10:33 a.m.

    Your story may be true. I dont have any idea what a logging choker is or why the pay is so small. However your quote is not one I have ever heard from any one I know, but is often used by unscrupulous business men to demean working people.

    I believe that the only job that is beneath a persons willingness to work are those where the reward is so out of line with the effort that a reasonable person would not do it. And that the reason foreign workers are willing to accept such is that they have been so miserably oppressed in their own countries. It is to your discredit that you take such unfair advantage of them.

    The American nation was a promise of equal opportunity and fair treatment of all. Businessmen have broken that promise, by their destruction of the character and worth of workers. Your use of the phrase work is beneath me is a part of the business propaganda to harm workers, not a part of the American worker.

  • Floyd Johnson Broken Arrow, OK
    Dec. 2, 2011 1:59 p.m.


    Who is criticizing the poor? And why aren't you helping them? Or do you mean "we" as in everyone but me?

  • buckbeaver Lake Forest, CA
    Dec. 2, 2011 1:53 p.m.

    How unfortunate that in a time of severe ongoing stress in this great nation there are still those who would rather play a game of he said/she said over an article which highlights the welfare program of any different organization. I did not see one comment concerning Lemonade in Houston. but then again, the larger the organization the bigger the target. Who cares who the chairman is as long as they get the job done. As for you LDS detractors, more often than not a POTUS or president of other nations study the LDS model and comment that it should be set up at a national level. What ever the LDS church is doing, keep up the good work.

  • Floyd Johnson Broken Arrow, OK
    Dec. 2, 2011 1:53 p.m.


    Who is criticizing the poor? And why aren't you helping them? Or do you mean "we" as in everyone but me?

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    Dec. 2, 2011 1:40 p.m.

    Molly, there's an old saying: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

    Your justification of bashing LDS people who turned to the church in their time of need is just cold and cruel. And there's just no way conceal your true attitude to the church's program or the people they help.
    And then to generalize that the bankruptcies in Utah according to your suggesting, must all be LDS.
    Not to mention that your facts are way off when it comes to bankruptcy.
    But typically, bashers don't worry too much about providing facts when it comes to generalizing. It just doesn't fit their "model"
    And then you dig yet a little deeper, you decide that the LDS church's welfare model must not be working because people are using it because they know of it's availablity.
    I would suggest you are having a creative recall of the details of the single's conference.
    Hopefully there weren't any single mothers at this singles conference, who had ever needed assistance from the church.
    I can only imagine how you would try not to "bash them" for being LDS and receiving help from the church.
    Hopefully this Christmas season will soften even your heart.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 1:23 p.m.

    why do we criticize the poor so much and help them so little?

  • Lilljemalm Gilbert, AZ
    Dec. 2, 2011 12:58 p.m.

    For those who insist Utah has the highest bankrupcy rate, you're misinformed. It is true that a few years ago, Utah had a two year period of leading the country in bankrupcies as a percentage of population, but since then, West Virginia, Alabama, California, Georgia and Arizona have all take turns leading the country in bankrupcy rates.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 12:58 p.m.

    Is it really self-reliant if say... you're getting church welfare instead of gov't welfare? Isn't that still reliant... just on a different entity? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    "You want to force people to give while the Lord's way is for us to choose to give freely of our abundance"

    How free is it? Or let me put it this way... if tithing wasn't a pre-req to getting in the temple and 10% was merely a suggestion... how many people would be giving less than 10% in tithing when they give 10% now?

    "Our government, with current welfare estimates, has a 50 trillion dollar liability over the next 75 years. It would take our GDP doubling every year for 75 years to keep up to pay that liability."

    I'm pretty sure US GDP is about 13 trillion a year. Double that for next year and you get 26 trillion. Five more doubling years later you get 832 trillion which is notably way more than enough to pay 50 trillion. In other words... there's something faulty with your math.

  • SnowCanyonDad SANTA CLARA, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 12:54 p.m.

    It is very amusing when people bring up Utah' BK rate. It's usually people who have disdain for the LDS Church thinking the reason behind BK's are tithing donations. What they fail to mention is, and what they seem to tout is Utah's Mormon population is dwindling to around 50%. So, if that is the fact, then at least half of Utah's population's BK rate is Non Mormons. I have never filed for BK but I assume there wouldn't be a check box for Mormon or Non Mormom there??

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 12:06 p.m.

    @Dektol: what facts do you have to back up your statement that "LDS welfare has never worked?"

    Can you share the statement where "leaders tell members to look to the government first these days...?"

    It's not in any manual I've ever read and I've pretty much read them all.

    I love this quote:

    "Touring the Church's Ogden Utah Welfare Cannery, President Gordon B. Hinckley explained Church welfare to him. With his trademark smile President Reagan answered he already knew about the welfare program from what he'd observed in California, and then lamented admiringly, 'Oh that our federal welfare worked so perfectly.'"

    The anti-LDS on this site are never pleased with anything concerning LDS. It's kind of sad to see people waste so much of their lives fighting something that is only out to help the entire population of the world.

  • don17 Temecula, CA
    Dec. 2, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    Just to clarify a few facts that are being thrown around wildely with no true fact to back them up.

    Utah does not and has not lead the nation in bankrupcies.

    2007 14 states higher level based on population percentage
    22 states statistically similar
    2008 9 state higher level
    22 states similiar
    2009 7 states higher
    9 states similiar
    2010 13 similiar statistically

    2011 is not available yet but again Nevada leads the way
    (Statistics: National Credit Card Data on Bankruptcy:All Types)
    However, the trend for Utah is negative.

    On LDS Welfare and and running to get it as pointed out by Ms. Moli:

    Please note in a Graduate level study I was involved in at a Non-Utah(Not LDS Affliated Graduate School) the rate at which LDS members requested assistance for food was 4 months beyond the date of job loss as compared to the general public. 500 LDS and 500 non LDS families were surveyed.

    Please also consider: Each State has different perameters that affect unemployment and time factors that affect timing in asking for assistance. I.E. overall state economic health prior to a downturn, wealth of the state, job sectors, etc...

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 11:55 a.m.

    Is this how Mitt wants to do it?

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Dec. 2, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    Allowing or making it mandatory for people to work for what they get - even if in a small way, helps people to maintain dignity and to not feel entitled. Sure, some will still feel entitled or will abuse the system, but many will not. As with anything regarding the LDS church, many will criticize. I have seen the program work and truly help people with a hand up. I have also seen the abuse of the governments welfare program. I think the LDS church has the right idea and I would love to see the government adopt similar policies.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:55 a.m.

    Not mentioning the provenance of the person making the statement quoted is deceptive in this instance.
    Whether one likes or dislikes LDS,inc... honesty in reporting in a newspaper is expected. The way this is written gives a much different story than when one knows is is 'one of their own' making the statement.

    Reality is that LDS welfare has never worked. That is why leaders tell members to look to the government first these days... they finally admitted to themselves what many of us have known to be true for a long time.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:41 a.m.

    @Meckofahess: My comments to Ms Molli are based on her many hating posts of things LDS. I'm actually stunned that she went to a meeting in an LDS building where a GA was speaking. Most people who hate things LDS as she does don't go to the belly of the beast.

    And her facts are incorrect. Utah doesn't lead the nation in personal bankruptices for the past decade or so. The statistic is easy to find if you want facts.

    Also, you claim "I believe we could do a MUCH BETTER job of teaching real self reliance and not just "serving" the needy without helping them to grow and become contributors and not just receivers themselves."

    Maybe you could provide the details of your great plan? Lay it out for us to see.

    You also seem to be the busybody type. Do you monitor the workings of your bishop and any assignment he gives to those who you "think" are receiving assistance? Utah Mormons are a strange bunch and you are the poster child!

    The welfare method of the church is by far and away the best there is. Self, family, church is how assistance should be pursued.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:33 a.m.

    @ Ultra Bob,
    I have a problem with those who say they are looking for work and are occupiers.
    At work we needed some entry level workers pay was 20 and hour setting chokers in logging. five days a week rain or shine my boss and I went to Occupy Olympia to offer any one a job. they all turned it down because let me quote " that work is beneath me" When One does not have a job any job is better then non. yeah it might not be in the field of study you did but a pay check at the end of the week sure is good. We ended up hiring three people who speak Spanish and english and have their green cards. Best darn workers ever.

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:32 a.m.

    @ Freedom-in-Danger, I appreciate your exchange of opinions. And you are probably right -- perhaps the model could be a perfect model if the people could be a perfect people.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:21 a.m.

    @ Ms Molli
    I see you do not know how the finances of the church work. All tithing goes to church head quarters. Were as Fast offerings stay in the local wards and stakes any extra at the end of the year goes to Church head quarters. Its not about because to many people are abusing the system. It is about helping those who need it it and hopefully keeping them from going to the government for help. Our welfare system is way better then what the government can do for people. And one of the things we as members need to do is help the those in need every way we can.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    While I think it's working as much as it CAN work... and by that I mean that it's working as much as any model could... because it's reliant on the people putting into it. Without people putting in, there would be nothing. So I think it's working as much as it can. Which could be a bad sign really... maybe our economic situation is so bad that it just has to snap at this point?

    But yes, I do agree 100% that there is a great risk in knowing you have someone to lean on which is why the 'work required' idea is so important. Instead of leaning. It should be a hypersensitive mutually carried load. You help someone freely. But only when their pulling their share and the very instant they stop pulling enough to grow themselves out of the situation, you stop pulling also.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:10 a.m.

    Oh, @Charles - cheap shot to Ms Molli. Not exactly how one would expect a Christian to behave. Please consider she is only sharing a point of view and not "hatred" as you attempt to portray it. Lets be a little more open minded. Perhaps we will be less prone to our "our own form of hatred" just because someone has a little different point of view than we do my friend. As a Latter Day Saint, I think Ms. Mollie makes several relevant points.

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    @Freedom-in-Dange, I totally agree with you that people should work together and help each other. The point I made is that the model is just a model -- it isn't apparently working in real life for a pretty big population. To have Utah with the highest rate of personal bankruptcies (and by the way he said this statistic has been pretty even for well over a decade -- including before this big economic turndown) and to have all of the fast offerings stay along the Wasaatch front is pretty clear evidence that the LDS population in Utah are not learning to become self-reliant! This talk was about personal finances, by the way. My point is that sometimes when you know with certainty that you have someone to lean on it can interfere with your ability to become self-reliant. Sometimes help may be too easy to come by.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    I agree with Ms Molli. I see Church leaders handing out support and there is little evidence that they ask the recipients to do anything to help out in return. Granted, Bishops don't broadcast everything they might ask the recipient to do which they should not. But I do see a gross lack of understanding the principle of self reliance in the Church in general. The emphasis seems to be on giving a helping hand and service to others but practically no emphasis on personal responsibility or self reliance as those quoted in this article attempt to portray. I am an active member and I applaud the welfare program of the Church but I believe we could do a MUCH BETTER job of teaching real self reliance and not just "serving" the needy without helping them to grow and become contributors and not just receivers themselves.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:52 a.m.

    Molli: blanket judgements only hide details. The truth is that everyone has an individual life with an individual struggle. While many people are in their situation because of their own actions, that doesn't say anything bad about anyone. People make mistakes, but if someone asks the church for help that doesn't give any of us a place to judge. What we should do is offer our hands out to help on the condition that they help themselves and others as well. That is the LDS "model" spoken of here. And yes, it most certainly is working. Because the model requires people to in fact... work.

    Whether a General Authority says that rates are high in one area or not says nothing about whether we should be taken back by that statistic, or doubt whether the system is working. In the LDS Church we work together to help each other. Just because some people managed poorly and there is a recent rise in any area means nothing less than our needing to put a sock in it and start helping each other. No one is taking from the Church storehouse without the Lord's permission and their agreement to equally work.

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    Run&Moli, I always smile when someone says "I'm not bashing the LDS church, but......
    Moly, I would suggest you reserve your squinted judgements of a large group of people, to those who actually know the details of each individual situation.

    I would also ask if you are intimately aware of the abuse of the government welfare services around the country. And have you been on here expressing your outrage over the use of taxpayers money in that system.
    And does it bother you if a Catholic, Jew or Baptist works in the government welfare system that is widely known for being ineffecient?

    Does it concern you as much as people living on the Wasatch front, who have humbled themselves enough to meet with their bishops and work out a way to receive assistance while doing other things like working at the bishop's storehouse or cleaning chapels to try to compensate for the assistance received?
    My experience with bashers is perfectly reflected in your assessment of the LDS church, followed by your blind, and might I add, your un Christlike attack on those who have needed help and been blessed by the very organization that you "don't intend to bash".

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:38 a.m.

    Correction: I meant, 'A principle is NOT validated by devotion to it.' How ironically appropriate that I make a mistake on a comment that claims that criticizing mistakes is illogical. lol



    A "Mormons think a Mormon program is great" article makes a lot of sense to me. Compare to older concepts of virtue- any praise of anything good is welcome, regardless of the source.

    I absolutely recognize that you stated you have no 'unbiased expectation'. I just find this point interesting and wanted to expand on it.

    Regarding the appearance of non-LDS point. While I entirely understand that and agree that the article (or at least the title) could have been better phrased to clarify this... at the same time, Interviewing an LDS person doesn't negate that the group wasn't LDS and their experiences. So I don't think this is bad of the Deseret News, but I would agree that the reporting could have improved in this way.

    Regarding your question, I meant that comments regarding the LDS People are irrelevant to the LDS model itself. The first comment on here, despite my thinking it's inaccurate, doesn't offer anything relevant to the article. Thus my statement.

  • Veracity Morgan, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:38 a.m.

    Lead...and the world will follow (hopefully)

  • The_Kaiser Holladay, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:37 a.m.

    Redshirt1701 Said it well.

    Too bad the welfare-state of the government does not encourage self-reliance, but encourages a further dependence on the state. Such attitudes that are developed lead people to believe that welfare is a "right", not a privilege.

    I'm glad that the Church does a good job in encouraging others to be self-reliant, while emphasizing the principle of mercy to those who genuinely need help.

    Our government, with current welfare estimates, has a 50 trillion dollar liability over the next 75 years. It would take our GDP doubling every year for 75 years to keep up to pay that liability.

    Which means, government welfare may not exist for much longer, and our government may not either.

  • Runtu64 PROVO, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    jsf: I've already said that I think the LDS welfare program is commendable. I'm LDS, and I have done a lot of service in the welfare program, including picking and sorting fruit, working at a dairy farm, canning peanut butter, and volunteering at the Bishop's Storehouse. And once, when I was laid off, I received food and other supplies from the Bishop's Storehouse. My wife served as a welfare missionary for the church in South America. I have nothing but admiration for the church's welfare program, and I agree with the emphasis on self-reliance.

    My issue here is with the article, which wrongly implies praise from an unaffiliated group. The CEO of the organization is a Latter-day Saint, and she is the only member of the group that is quoted. You don't think that should be mentioned?

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    @Charles | 9:15 a.m. Dec. 2, 2011
    The Greater Outdoors, UT
    @Ms Molli: Should we discount all of your posts because of the anger and hatred towards all things LDS? According to your logic, we should just dismiss you completely.I don't know what meeting you were in but your information is completely false regarding fast offerings along the Wasatch front.

    @Charles, the meeting was at an LDS singles conference here in Utah sponsored by the LDS church. That talk was given by a GA. In addition, in that same talk we were told that Utah had the highest rate of personal bankruptcy in the nation.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    One of the things those dirty, unwashed, stinky, loud, disorganized, communist, socialist Occupiers have on their wish list is/are jobs. Charity is great when youre starving, but having a job makes you feel better and more secure. However jobs provided by charity are seldom permanent. And as we are often told, temporary jobs dont really help.

    If those millionaire philanthropists would simply live up to their propaganda and create permanent jobs, it would be much nicer.

  • Floyd Johnson Broken Arrow, OK
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:21 a.m.

    Dektol and Runtu64

    The fact that a board member had a previous familiarity stemming from an indirect tie has no relevance on the information included in the article. I would presume others in the organization have indirect ties to Lemonade Day and Florida's Positive Coaching Alliance. Those connections were not disclosed either. I can't imagine reading an article where such disclaimers were required. Consider, for example, the following inclusion: "...Florida's Positive Coaching Alliance (please note that board member Sam Branson's nephew participated in the program, Pat Johnson lived three years in Miami and Jean Lombard vacationed at Sea World last spring)...." Requiring Toronto's college background is equally as ridiculous. The only explanation I have for your concern is that you are in some way attempting to minimize the contributions of the LDS welfare system. The other information you are requesting is irrelevant to the conversation.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:20 a.m.

    Ok Runtu64, what do you think of this program. Is it a good program or not.
    Ms Molli yes your intent is to LDS bash because that is what you go on to do.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:15 a.m.

    Given the necessity of having one or two jobs to survive in today's economy, I think its nearly impossible to be self reliant. We do rely on our family, our network of friends, the church and the government. When I was a ward employment specialist I quickly learned that if I couldn't find a new job within 60 days after a ward member became unemployed, bankruptcy become inevitable. Church welfare doesn't cut it. I do appreciate the Church's efforts on helping folks find work.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:15 a.m.

    @Ms Molli: Should we discount all of your posts because of the anger and hatred towards all things LDS? According to your logic, we should just dismiss you completely.

    I don't know what meeting you were in but your information is completely false regarding fast offerings along the Wasatch front.

    Also, I'm sure there are families that go to the church for assistance when the bread winner loses their job. But I know it's not the rule and it's definitely not in that very "moment".

    I don't understand why so many of you hate on all things LDS. It's the usual diatribes of envy, coveting and anger.

    According to many of you, the LDS church does absolutely nothing right, correct, applaudable or something to emulate. It's sad that you have so much disdain built up inside your soul and you choose the Dnews threads to release it.

    @FDRfan: it's not radical except to people like you. You want to force people to give while the Lord's way is for us to choose to give freely of our abundance. You and LDS Lib have a true distorted view of the Lord's gospel.

  • Runtu64 PROVO, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:08 a.m.

    I didn't realize the church had any epidemiological claims. But, that said, who is criticizing the LDS model?

  • Runtu64 PROVO, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    I don't expect news outlets to be unbiased, but this story amounts to "Mormon thinks Mormon welfare program is awesome." Surely, we should expect better from the Deseret News.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    It is without reason to criticize the LDS Model according to the devotion of the LDS membership to that model. If this were to be accepted, then the actions of all men would subsequently negate their own beliefs. A principle is validated by devotion to it. Only relativism may be appropriately criticized by that standard.

    Joseph Smith faced this same self-serving principle of judgement that has continued to be falsely applied against this work since it's restoration, and in the very accounts so long ago in the bible.

    It is illogical to criticize the form of our translations or scripture, the righteousness of our membership, or anything less than the doctrinal principles themselves. Why? Because the nature of LDS theological and epidemiological claims premise that we are an imperfect people working toward a perfect cause.

    One my ask, what about 'Ye shall know them by their works'?. That does not mean that my devotion validates principles. Just as the consequence of a principle reveal its ultimate function- what work we produce in our lives reveals which principles we adhere to.

    This logical evidence only proves what we already knew. We're not a perfect people. But our gospel is.

  • New Yorker Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 8:30 a.m.

    Any of you who think reporting is or should be unbiased are naive. Why do you think so many big corporations donate to NPR? I'd just get sick an turn off a program that started or ended with a list of possible conflicts of interest. We all know what they are, and belly-aching about it will just make the final media product more tedious both here at DN and at NPR.

    I, for one, like the promotion of self-reliance by anyone who will do it. Too many people think that government should or will help them when things go south. It ain't going to happen, and they should all realize that now.

  • FDRfan safety dictates, ID
    Dec. 2, 2011 8:19 a.m.

    Doctrine and Covenants 104:16

    16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

    I hope this is not lost in all of the discussions. I believe it will be too radical to believe that the poor could be viewed as equals.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:59 a.m.

    Why does the article give the impression of a neutral observer making comments? Shannon Toronto attended Grad School at BYU. Not exactly as portrayed in the story, is it?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:57 a.m.

    It is too bad that the government doesn't model their welfare system after the LDS system.

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:57 a.m.

    @ Shaun, I would have to agree with you and my agreement is not intended to LDS bash. I think in some ways that LDS have become more and more reliant upon the church. Look around you and see how many are receiving help from the church, particularly along the Wasaatch front. A few years ago I attended a meeting telling us that unlike any other area in the US, 100% of the fast offerings along the Wasaatch front stay right here because of the needs. I wonder what members would do if the church help wasn't available. I would guess that many would learn to become more self-reliant. The church has been saying for decades now to put aside funds for emergencies (6 months worth of expenses), to store food and other essentials for emergencies, etc. Yet the moment someone loses their job they begin looking to the church and people within the church for help. I really don't think that the lessons on self-reliance are being absorbed by many. It sounds good on paper, but in practice I don't think it is working. Perhaps for the extreme poor, but not the middle class.

  • Runtu64 PROVO, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    It might have helped if you had mentioned that Shannon Toronto, CEO of the Philanthropy Roundtable, is LDS and a BYU graduate. The article as it stands makes it seem like this impartial group from Washington with no connection to the LDS church was so impressed by the church's welfare program that they traveled all the way to Salt Lake to see it in action.

    The church does a great deal of commendable charitable and humanitarian work. It just seems unnecessary to use praise from a church member to imply outside approval.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 7:44 a.m.

    The article is not about the general LDS population, but a program in trying to help make people self reliant. Thanks for your opinion on LDS people, however.

  • shaun_ SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 6:06 a.m.

    I really do not think LDS people are more self reliant than anybody else.