Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26
Absolutely agreed. Incidentally, Doug, I've just realized what a lot of our political differences stem from: I don't see issues like welfare as being about commanding people to be good, but about making sure all Americans have somewhere to live (and what other way is there to do that? I don't see it as the government making charity a law; I see it as the government saying that, since part of its job is to protect its citizens and enable their pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government money should be used for that purpose. If you believe in paying taxes, then I don't see why taxes shouldn't be used for that purpose. If you don't believe the government has the right to collect taxes, well then, that's a whole different story). The "values" issues, on the other hand, specifically are about compelling people to be "good"--what Christians think is good--and that is why I don't think government has a right to make laws about them. We're just looking at these things from opposite angles.
Anyway. Here I wasn't referencing politics, but the way every tiny thing in Mormon life is regulated, either by official church policy or by Mormon culture. Which I think is silly and unnecessary.
I believe that government absolutely has the right to tax its citizens. And the citizens have a responsibility to pay those taxes. I'm not advocating for a second that because I disagree with some government entities making laws about providing social programs that someone shouldn't pay the taxes that are required of them.
Where we differ is the belief of whether government SHOULD provide social welfare. I don't believe they should. Government is inefficient, wasteful, slow, and has restrictions imposed upon it that others don't.
For example, the government can't be discretionary about the money that it doles out. If someone used their last support check to buy a fancy cell phone instead of paying their family, they couldn't say, "Sorry... you wasted your last check. You aren't getting one this month." or they'd get sued. Independent charitable organizations do have this kind of discretion, and can help instill a sense of responsibility in people. Government programs tend to create a sense of entitlement and dependence. Programs like that will never be successful long term, and don't help to improve the state of society. People ought to be given chances to learn to be responsible and productive, becoming independent rather than dependent. Government social programs don't (and most likely can't) do that.
But the original point remains. Our laws ought to be there to protect, not provide... guide and not compel. Laws enacted by government should be based on principles, not specifics. We've gotten really far away from the original intent of the Constitution in that regard.
Again, Doug, you're focusing on the "compelling" part, and I don't think that's what it's about. Things like universal health care and welfare ARE about protecting, and not compelling. They're about protecting people who can't afford those things on their own, and who are left behind by an economic system that is not so great about securing those inalienable rights for everyone.
The purpose of welfare and health care laws is not to compel people to be good. These are not laws requiring that people be charitable--making sure people can afford health care is not a matter of charity. These are laws saying that, since a government's purpose is to protect and enable the pursuit of those inalienable rights, government money will be used for it. It's not compelling charity--paying your taxes is not charity. It's just saying that this is what tax money should be used for.
As far as the efficiency of government programs goes, I'll say what I've said before--an inefficient plan doesn't mean that we should scrap the whole thing and instead have NO plan. It just means we learn how to make the programs better.
Marisa--exactly. That is exactly how I feel. I mentioned a quote from Gandhi before in one of these conversations: "Action expresses priorities." If the poor and the sick are not our priorities, then I don't know that we have anything much to be proud of as a country.
Just discovered this super interesting blog post and thought you might like to read it: http://ifeellikeschrodingerscat.blogspot.com/2012/01/leaving-lds-cult-of-false-expectations.html
It's funny that you shared this, Janie, because I was discussing it earlier today with the guy who wrote it. I don't know him, but he posted the link in a conversation I was having with some friends. I'm going to just paste what I said to him, because I don't want to have to go through the whole comment and change all the pronouns. :)
So... I'm sorry, Carl, but I really don't like this post. I mostly feel like you spent the entire time dismissing her experiences because they don't fit with yours. The paragraph about valuing unquestioning obedience over critical thinking - okay, maybe that's not the church you were raised in. It's the church I was raised in, and it's the church she was raised in. It's the church a lot of people were raised in. You can't say that this isn't a problem in the church just because it wasn't a problem for YOU.
The paragraph about the high-ranking leader saying historical materials were worse than pornography--okay, so he was wrong. He still said it. A lot of things happen in the church that are wrong. That's EXACTLY THE POINT. They're wrong, and they happen. But when people like Carrie Sheffield talk about how those things happen, other people tell them that SINCE those things were wrong, they shouldn't take them as representative of the church. This is completely missing the point. That quote from Hugh B. Brown that you mentioned--that's pretty much the official motto of disaffected Mormons, because it is at odds with the general atmosphere of the church. It is at odds with what many Mormons have experienced personally.
I agree with you one hundred percent about the Cult of False Expectations. But I can't understand why you chose to frame it as a rebuttal to Sheffield's article. To me, it sounds like support of it. This Cult of False Expectations is widespread. People like your family who "get it right," as you say, are distinctly in the minority. And they can speak only for their own families, not for the general atmosphere of the church. You cannot say that Sheffield's article gets Mormonism "terribly, terribly wrong", because it describes HER EXPERIENCE. An experience which is very similar to many others' experiences. Yes, what she described is not what Mormonism should be. But that doesn't mean that SHE was wrong in how she described it. It means that the Cult of False Expectations is wrong.
That summarizes my political belief. We don't need laws to tell us or force us to do good. We should do it on our own.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agreed. Incidentally, Doug, I've just realized what a lot of our political differences stem from: I don't see issues like welfare as being about commanding people to be good, but about making sure all Americans have somewhere to live (and what other way is there to do that? I don't see it as the government making charity a law; I see it as the government saying that, since part of its job is to protect its citizens and enable their pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government money should be used for that purpose. If you believe in paying taxes, then I don't see why taxes shouldn't be used for that purpose. If you don't believe the government has the right to collect taxes, well then, that's a whole different story). The "values" issues, on the other hand, specifically are about compelling people to be "good"--what Christians think is good--and that is why I don't think government has a right to make laws about them. We're just looking at these things from opposite angles.
ReplyDeleteAnyway. Here I wasn't referencing politics, but the way every tiny thing in Mormon life is regulated, either by official church policy or by Mormon culture. Which I think is silly and unnecessary.
I believe that government absolutely has the right to tax its citizens. And the citizens have a responsibility to pay those taxes. I'm not advocating for a second that because I disagree with some government entities making laws about providing social programs that someone shouldn't pay the taxes that are required of them.
ReplyDeleteWhere we differ is the belief of whether government SHOULD provide social welfare. I don't believe they should. Government is inefficient, wasteful, slow, and has restrictions imposed upon it that others don't.
For example, the government can't be discretionary about the money that it doles out. If someone used their last support check to buy a fancy cell phone instead of paying their family, they couldn't say, "Sorry... you wasted your last check. You aren't getting one this month." or they'd get sued. Independent charitable organizations do have this kind of discretion, and can help instill a sense of responsibility in people. Government programs tend to create a sense of entitlement and dependence. Programs like that will never be successful long term, and don't help to improve the state of society. People ought to be given chances to learn to be responsible and productive, becoming independent rather than dependent. Government social programs don't (and most likely can't) do that.
But the original point remains. Our laws ought to be there to protect, not provide... guide and not compel. Laws enacted by government should be based on principles, not specifics. We've gotten really far away from the original intent of the Constitution in that regard.
Society has a duty to protect the infirm, elderly, destitute, and the young. Any society that fails to do so, is morally bankrupt.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Doug, you're focusing on the "compelling" part, and I don't think that's what it's about. Things like universal health care and welfare ARE about protecting, and not compelling. They're about protecting people who can't afford those things on their own, and who are left behind by an economic system that is not so great about securing those inalienable rights for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of welfare and health care laws is not to compel people to be good. These are not laws requiring that people be charitable--making sure people can afford health care is not a matter of charity. These are laws saying that, since a government's purpose is to protect and enable the pursuit of those inalienable rights, government money will be used for it. It's not compelling charity--paying your taxes is not charity. It's just saying that this is what tax money should be used for.
As far as the efficiency of government programs goes, I'll say what I've said before--an inefficient plan doesn't mean that we should scrap the whole thing and instead have NO plan. It just means we learn how to make the programs better.
Marisa--exactly. That is exactly how I feel. I mentioned a quote from Gandhi before in one of these conversations: "Action expresses priorities." If the poor and the sick are not our priorities, then I don't know that we have anything much to be proud of as a country.
Just discovered this super interesting blog post and thought you might like to read it: http://ifeellikeschrodingerscat.blogspot.com/2012/01/leaving-lds-cult-of-false-expectations.html
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you shared this, Janie, because I was discussing it earlier today with the guy who wrote it. I don't know him, but he posted the link in a conversation I was having with some friends. I'm going to just paste what I said to him, because I don't want to have to go through the whole comment and change all the pronouns. :)
ReplyDeleteSo... I'm sorry, Carl, but I really don't like this post. I mostly feel like you spent the entire time dismissing her experiences because they don't fit with yours. The paragraph about valuing unquestioning obedience over critical thinking - okay, maybe that's not the church you were raised in. It's the church I was raised in, and it's the church she was raised in. It's the church a lot of people were raised in. You can't say that this isn't a problem in the church just because it wasn't a problem for YOU.
The paragraph about the high-ranking leader saying historical materials were worse than pornography--okay, so he was wrong. He still said it. A lot of things happen in the church that are wrong. That's EXACTLY THE POINT. They're wrong, and they happen. But when people like Carrie Sheffield talk about how those things happen, other people tell them that SINCE those things were wrong, they shouldn't take them as representative of the church. This is completely missing the point. That quote from Hugh B. Brown that you mentioned--that's pretty much the official motto of disaffected Mormons, because it is at odds with the general atmosphere of the church. It is at odds with what many Mormons have experienced personally.
I agree with you one hundred percent about the Cult of False Expectations. But I can't understand why you chose to frame it as a rebuttal to Sheffield's article. To me, it sounds like support of it. This Cult of False Expectations is widespread. People like your family who "get it right," as you say, are distinctly in the minority. And they can speak only for their own families, not for the general atmosphere of the church. You cannot say that Sheffield's article gets Mormonism "terribly, terribly wrong", because it describes HER EXPERIENCE. An experience which is very similar to many others' experiences. Yes, what she described is not what Mormonism should be. But that doesn't mean that SHE was wrong in how she described it. It means that the Cult of False Expectations is wrong.
I should have known you would have already read it. :) Either way, when I read it I thought it was something you would want to read.
ReplyDeleteYou were right, thanks for sharing! And it was only by a couple hours that I'd already seen it, definitely a coincidence. :)
ReplyDelete