LDS World: Our duty is to liberate the captives

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Oct. 1, 2013 4:40 a.m.

    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 and essential.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Sept. 30, 2013 6:30 a.m.

    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.

  • JonathanPDX Portland, Oregon
    Sept. 30, 2013 3:56 a.m.

    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 evil.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 29, 2013 8:13 p.m.


    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.

  • mercy Sandy, UT
    Sept. 29, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    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 Saint George, UT
    Sept. 29, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 29, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    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 slavery.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 29, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    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.

  • New Yorker Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 29, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    Noble concepts! Great article! Let's do something (LDS)!

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Sept. 29, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    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.

  • JD Tractor Iowa City, IA
    Sept. 29, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    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.