Mormons and Gov't Aid

[Concorde]

I started writing this for a question on the Board, but I realized it was turning into a tangential rant, and was probably better suited to here. The question had to do with young Mormons having children in college, when they couldn't afford them. I know this is a very sensitive topic, but I've always been very unsettled by it, because it usually has to do with Gov't Aid, and I feel that Mormons have the wrong idea about gov't aid. The following is essentially what I had written, and I'm curious as to what other people think.

While it's none of my business and I certainly will never tell anyone what to do within the confines of their marriage (or even just their lives in general), I have to agree with you. I've always been a bit confused by those who chose (accidents happen, no judgement) to have children when they can't afford them. We've been counseled by General Authorities to do all in our power to be self-sufficient and not reliant on the government for aid, and while I understand that it is necessary sometimes, I am still a bit confused at the number of young couples having children they can't afford with the idea that the government will pay for it. A new child is already stressful enough, as is being financially shaky on your own. Putting extreme economic uncertainty (I say extreme, because a general economic uncertainty will always be present for most of the 99%) with a new baby sounds so incredibly stressful.

Admittedly, I struggle a bit to understand why God would prompt parents who can't afford a child, to have one, especially when they will be able to afford one in a year or two upon completion of school or acceptance of a job. God, via the prophets, has asked us to not rely on government aid, and my biggest concern with young, newly married college students having children without a solid financial backing is that they'll turn to governmental assistance, or their child may live the formative years of their life in poverty, lacking many opportunities to grow. Having parents that love you dearly does a lot for children, but it's naive and juvenile to believe that that is enough. I worked very closely with children in poverty for the decade that I lived in Detroit. Many of them had parents that loved them more than my own parents loved me, but the children still suffered because their parents were having children that they simply couldn't afford.

This is turning into more of a rant against governmental assistance for Mormons. Here's the thing, I'm not against governmental assistance in the slightest. Heck, it's hard to be when you grew up in Detroit during the recession and all of your friends needed gov't aid through no fault of their parents, just to survive. But I feel that we as Mormons are held to a different standard. We are taught to be self sufficient and we have a network of people that can support us, who we in turn support. Governmental aid seems like the cheap way out, since it doesn't require any work on the part of the recipient, while the Bishop's storehouse requires work, but provides similar services. I have issues with young, healthy, able-bodied Mormons having children on purpose and going on welfare on purpose, thus taking aid away from people who genuinely need it and have no other recourse. That seems selfish to me (especially considering the fact that Mormons tend to vote down measures that would increase gov't aid, suggesting that those who were on gov't aid while starting their families eventually moved off of Gov't aid and took a hypocritical stance against it later on- don't take advantage of something that you're later going to bash- that's doubly screwing over people who genuinely need it).

Ezra Taft Benson: "Latter-day Saints should not receive unearned welfare assistance from local or national agencies. This includes food stamps. Priesthood and Relief Society leaders should urge members to accept the Church welfare program and earn through the program that which they need, even though they may receive less food and money. By doing so, members will be spiritually strengthened, and they will maintain their dignity and self-respect. Last year in the United States alone over $98 billion was distributed in unearned government transfer payments and other aid to millions of men and women who most often did nothing for what they received. This character-weakening government dole is repeated in almost every nation of the world. We encourage Latter-day Saints everywhere to remain free of government assistance. Work for what you receive."

This article HERE disagrees with me, but it cites some stats that I find particularly interesting, and a bit frustrating. What is so wrong with waiting two or three years until your mid to late twenties to have children? My mother waited until she was 28 and she and my dad had good insurance and some savings before having five children. It's not like delaying until the end of college and the beginning of a job will prevent you from fulfilling your commandments. I know we're counseled not to delay having children because perfect circumstances will never happen, but surely that doesn't mean "HAVE CHILDREN NOW NO MATTER WHAT." Surely there's nothing sinful about waiting until 24 or 25 when you're not considered to be living below the poverty line to start your family?

This is incredibly judge-y, yes, but I would NEVER tell anyone when or where or how to start their families. I'm just a bit frustrated by the lack of self-reliance and selfish decisions I see amongst my peers. Thoughts?

[Portia]

I agree especially about the hypocrisy point. My best friend had to go on CHIP, and it puzzled me why she'd put herself in that position. I disagree with Benson's rantings about a safety net, but waiting for stability is always good for big decisions.

[Whistler]

I agree with you that people should have children when they can plan on providing for their children's needs. And if you use gov't financial assistance at any time in your life it does seem like it should make you more likely to support those measures.

I thought I remembered an 100 HB answer on this topic but I can't think of the right keywords. But some other questions are related, like http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/50207/ where the official church policy is neutral on gov't aid and http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/79652/ which is an example of a couple who used gov't aid to avoid debt.

[Concorde]

Interesting. Admittedly, Benson's quote is about the only one out there, and it's from quite a while ago. I still feel weird though about Mormons tending to be anti increasing Gov't aid, when a huge amount of them in the US use it.

Using Gov't aid to avoid debt is interesting, because I'm also very anti-debt. I'm not sure which one I dislike more. I think I would probably be more for using gov't aid to avoid debt, since debt has a higher likelihood of necessitating aid further down the road.

[vorpal blade]

Here are a few thoughts about what some other people think. They are not necessarily my own thoughts, but it might be helpful to see what is behind or motivates some people.

I agree that it does seem likely that some Mormons are hypocritical, accepting government assistance while being philosophically opposed to it. It would be easy to judge such people as being hypocrites. However, we don’t know the hearts of others (and often we don’t even know our own heart). Thinking someone is being greedy or taking advantage of something they are later going to bash might not be a fair judgment on some people.

Government assistance is everywhere and appears to be essential for survival for many people. There is also a strong lure to take advantage of “free money.” Government assistance can be addicting and sap your will to resist. Consider the smoker who is trying to quit. He knows smoking is expensive and is harmful to his health. He is trying to quit, but he struggles with his addiction. Would you call him a hypocrite if, while still buy cigarettes, he told everyone he knew that smoking is a bad habit and he would like to help others to avoid the road to tobacco addiction? And if he did manage to free himself from his addiction, must he remain forever silent in regard to the evils of smoking in order to not appear to be a hypocrite?

Many believe that government programs actually cause the problems they claim to be mitigating. Lying and corrupt politicians create poverty pits which keep the politicians in power and keep poor people subject to them. By the use of their vain and flattering words these politicians rob the people not only of their will to resist, but the opportunities, power, and money to resist. For some people receiving government assistance is merely taking back from the government what the government has immorally stolen from the people. Should you thumb your nose at the opportunity to recover some of what has been wrongfully taken from you, in order to not appear to be a hypocrite?

Others just consider the pragmatic reality of the situation. They have to pay taxes for many programs they don’t approve of. Why not work to abolish or at least not expand those programs they feel are harmful to the nation, while still accepting the benefits they are paying for in the meantime?

[Concorde]

Interesting points, Vorpal. I liked the way you worded them and it made me think. I was reminded of the fact that I filed my taxes early this year because I knew I was getting a hefty refund and extra money from the Gov't which is free (to me). It's not exactly the same as gov't aid, but at the same time, I see where you are coming from. It is very tempting. Thanks for your thoughts!

[bobtheenchantedone]

Oh man I'm frustrated by Mormons sometimes - my parents are Republican and often loudly proclaim against gov't aid (stances they take influenced by the LDS church; they are of the democrats-aren't-in-good-standing variety) and yet they've been on welfare of one kind or another for most of my life. My mother in particular will also complain about the hoops she has to jump through and the ways the gov't justifies giving only reduced lunch. DOES SHE NOT REALIZE SHE VOTES FOR THINGS LIKE THAT

As a side note, I've used both food stamps and bishop's storehouse and vastly prefer the former. Who would have thought that being able to shop when and where I chose would be more liberating and confidence-boosting than having to go to a bishop every two weeks to fill out a form that can only be redeemed in a building a ten minute drive away with a very limited selection?

[NovemberEast]

YES. THIS. THANK YOU CONCORDE!

If anyone in my ward asks me if kids are on our radar (which is annoying/rude, but we all know this and the topic has been beaten to death), I want to response "whenever I wouldn't have to be on gov't aid to have one."

But that would be rude. Or would it?

Oops.