Take away sheriffs and IRS collection agents and make welfare more a matter of private charity the way it was about a century ago than a vast mostly middle class ponzi scheme, and any religious person would be obligated to contribute and cheer it on.

I do not mind the safety net aspect of government welfare, it is expensive middle class entitlements, plus long term subsidies of various social pathologies that I have a problem with.

There is one more thing – there is no Santa Claus – even if every member of the Church consecrated their surplus over and above a minimal lower middle class lifestyle, we would run out of funds running a generous welfare subsidy program overnight. At some point, the welfare of the Saints is a function of work – hence the focus on training and education.

I am sure if people contributed more fast offerings we could do much more than we are doing, but there would never be enough to make the believers in Santa Claus happy.

D&C 104:14-17

“14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.

15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

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.

17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.”

Parts of this passage are quoted frequently, such as verse 17, which I have heard used to justify the exploitation of our enviornment. However, I am most interested in verse 16 which seems to be a strong encouragment for a program of economic redistribution. There is some irony, for me, that our church resouce booklet for our Welfare System uses part of the scripture “The Lords Way” as its title, while the program itself stresses individual rather than societal responsiblities towards the poor. (I am not against individual responsibility, but I believe that we can and should do much more as a society as well.)

Agreed, nicely said.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. On the other hand, perhaps in trying to understand what I wrote you could adopt a more charitable interpretation, rather than the interpretation that gets you the most riled up.

“in a multitude of counsellors there is safety”

This is a fundamental reason for conciliarism in the Church, including Ward, Stake, and General councils, quorums, and presidencies. When a leader chooses to disregard the feelings of his council or counsellors, he is taking an unnecessarily risky road.

We might call this the Central Limit Theorem of Church Administration – a rule documented in modern scripture in D&C 107 and implied in D&C 88:122:

“Appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.”

It is also the very basis of the principle of Correlation in the Church – a rule of safety if there ever was one.

Wacky Hermit and others: I am not so sure that the circumstances of D&C 124:49 are really all that rare. If we may move to the sensus plenior of the passage, it seems to me that the “enemies” that may come upon us don’t have to be limited to specific persons blocking our way to fulfilling the commandments. The daily scramble of trying to make a living in the world while trying not to be of it is conflict enough. I would therefore disagree that the near-total ignorance of this scripture in favor of 1 Ne. 3:7 is justified. I think that both should be held up in juxtaposition with the other so that the resulting tension will remind us that even the life of faith is full of complexity.