Jason Bourne wrote:We have succeeded fairly well in establishing in the minds of Latter-day Saints that they should take care of their own material needs and then contribute to the welfare of those who cannot provide the necessities of life. If a member is unable to sustain himself, then he is to call upon his own family, and then upon the Church, in that order, and not upon the government at all.
We have counseled bishops and stake presidents to be very careful to avoid abuses in the welfare program. When people are able but are unwilling to take care of themselves, we are responsible to employ the dictum of the Lord, that the idler shall not eat the bread of the laborer. The simple rule has been, to the fullest extent possible, to take care of one’s self.
How does one determine idler? Is someone who is poor automatically an idler? How about someone who is disabled?
And how do the words of another prophet compare to the words of Elder Packer? I see no qualification about an idler in the words below.
Mosiah 4:16-25
16And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17Perhaps 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—
18But 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.
19For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
20And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with cjoy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.
21And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.
22And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.
23I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.
24And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.
25And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.
1. The nature of "the idler", whether among the poor or as the characteristic of any individual, regardless of socioeconomic level, can be easily discerned in Packer's following comments:
President Marion G. Romney in our last conference explained this principle with his characteristic simple directness: “The obligation to sustain one’s self was divinely imposed upon the human race at its beginning. ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.’ (Gen. 3:19.)”
The welfare handbook instructs, “(We must) earnestly teach and urge members to be self-sustaining to the fullest extent of their power. No Latter-day Saint will … voluntarily shift from himself the burden of his own support. So long as he can, under the inspiration of the Almighty and with his own labors, he will supply himself with the necessities of life.” (1952, p. 2.)
We have counseled bishops and stake presidents to be very careful to avoid abuses in the welfare program. When people are able but are unwilling to take care of themselves, we are responsible to employ the dictum of the Lord, that the idler shall not eat the bread of the laborer. The simple rule has been, to the fullest extent possible, to take care of one’s self.
By logical extension, those who can, but will not comply with these principles and requirements of reciprocity and contribution, to the degree capable, with respect to the provision of Church welfare, could be seen as "idlers" attempting to "live off of" the property and labor of others without contributing to its creation.
2. By pitting King Benjamin against Boyd Packer, you pose a Kantian problem of seeing Benjamin's teachings about helping the poor as absolute, uncompromising maxims having no bounds, conditions, or governing limitations. As we see in D&C 88: 38-39:
And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.
Further, we see that:
There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
The commandments and mandates regarding our relations with the poor are not absolute mandates, transcending and trumping the other core principles of the gospel. They are not transcendentally absolute and unconditioned, having no "bounds and conditions" wherewith they are capacitated to various human circumstances. Principles such as this, when all mediating/governing bounds and conditions are removed from them, will inevitably clash with and come into conflict with other fundamental principles, with no reconciliation possible, unless they are mediated by gospel law
as a system.
We cannot, in other words, isolate and compartmentalize principles (such as grace, for instance) such that it overwhelms and dominates the gospel as a system of doctrine, principle, law and spiritual government.
Further, your criticism here would seem to be self negating, as the same prophet from whom came the Book of Mormon, and King Benjamin s words, is the same prophet from whom came the following:
“the idler shall not have place in the church, except he repent and mend his ways.” (D&C 75:29.)
For the Church, King Benjamin, Joseph Smith, and Boyd Packer all hold the very same priesthood and the same mantel of authority as "prophets, seers, and revelators" through which they can receive the mind and will of the Lord for the Church.
There is no contradiction at all in any of the statements or principles taught here. Welfare principles simply have mediating bounds, conditions, and perimeters just as do all other principles, promises, and blessings within the gospel system.
Further, the context of the King Benjamin material would appear to be an appeal to individuals in their personal relations with "the beggar" and people in need, not a general rule for the church as an organization managing large scale welfare services across an entire population.