It’s always good to find someone who cares about the poor! I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts, especially about my response to Alex. I was theorizing as I wrote. If there’s a literature on the reasons we’re more likely to buy tires for someone in our community than give live-preserving care to people out of sight, I haven’t read it. Having thought about it more in this exchange, however, it does strike me as very counter-intuitive that the people in the top 5% of global wealth receive as much charity as they do. In Utah we do sub-for-Santas for families that lost their jobs even though the family would still be in the top 1% of global wealth. That pattern would not be obvious to someone learning about principles of charity and surmising how charity would work in practice.

It would be interesting to see how “charity” is allocated to different income groups around the world. I’m guessing the distribution would look much like a global income curve.

Thanks for your response. I think our theoretical differences (both in terms of social theory and political theory) are quite drastic and making this difficult. I guess this issue is always going to be difficult because it is so closely aligned with our ideological perspective, whether we view it as ideological or not.

Sorry for overreacting a bit earlier in the thread.

UM, I continue to pay fast offerings, of course, I just think that the humanitarian and PEF programs do more good, and because I want to maximize the good of my donations I’ve increasingly shifted my church giving to those line items.

The panhandling comments were only to show the comparative of wealth of even the poorest Americans when measured on a global scale. In rich countries like America there’s a, literally, unprecedented concern that its poor are eating too many calories. It’s the kind of problem the poor around the world only dream about!

If a family in the US didn’t receive help from the church they might have to sell their car, or move into a small apartment, in with their family, or even into shared housing, etc., but they’d still have far, far better material conditions than our fellow members around the world deal with every day. I still give to people in the US, doing sub-for-Santas and buying tires for a single parent I home taught, etc., but question my acting as though a family I know going without new tires is more urgent than getting malaria treatments to the least of my brethren in Ghana or Guatemala.

Alex, I think our charitable giving is subject to several psychological distortions. The first is a kind of availability heuristic that causes us to prioritize pains we witness over more severe pains we don’t witness. Hence we are more likely to feel compelled to give money to someone we can see that can’t afford their utility bills than to those we can’t see with needs that are far greater. I’ll bet that in wards with half the membership living in houses without electricity the bishop doesn’t consider it an emergency when someone gets a Final Notice letter from the power company, and really would respond to a request for help by noting that lots of the ward has never had power at all.

Another psychological distortion is our tendency to care more about our own. I understand the gospel to be a challenge to overcome this natural preference. This is something I struggle with regarding my own kids: how much I should give my own rather than others (should I pay for my kids to take piano lessons, gymnastics lessons and do a special science program at school before I pay for a less fortunate Utah kid to do one of those? While there are still kids in Haiti without drinking water?!).

Need is relative. The poor in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, are not equal to the poor in Champaign, Illinois, but the poor are still poor and still need help. As a church, we use fast offerings to provide for the local needs of both members and non-members. That is the both the primary purpose of the fast offering fund. My fast offering contribution (the cost of the two small meals my wife and I eat on one Sunday in one month) is not enough to relieve the suffering of even one person in Champaign. But my contribution, combined with the contributions made by the other families in my ward, may be enough to help my friend pay her power bill. It is a small drop, but it is a drop. After all, causing my neighbour to go without power isn’t going to lessen the suffering of others, but it will lessen her suffering. And yes, it is suffering. It may not be as great as the suffering of others, but just as need is relative, so is suffering.

Humanitarian aid is a separate fund and is provided in a different manner. It sounds like you would like the church to put an end to all local assistance and use all fast offerings and humanitarian aid donations to assisting those outside our immediate communities. It is admirable to want to relieve suffering among those in the poorest of poor conditions. But to do so at the expense of those right among us is not the way to do it. I don’t know if this is what you are actually suggesting, but it is definitely the impression that is being received.

As indicated in my previous comment, I would be happy to be told that I have misunderstood your argument. I really am seeking clarification.

Just to clarify, are you proposing that those who currently receive church welfare in the United States or other similarly well-off countries turn to panhandling? If not, what is your point?

I get that you feel that some funds are misapplied (to pay the mortgage on too large of a house, for example), but your argument that all in developed countries are better off than those in less-developed countries seems flawed to me. The poor in this country likely have better opportunities than those in some other places, but opportunity alone does not feed a person. If a man or woman cannot afford food, that means that he or she cannot eat without either theft or assistance. The fact that the starving man or woman has a neighbor who owns a bread factory does not negate the starving man or woman’s inability to meet his or her need.

While lines undoubtedly must be drawn, drawing them around the borders of nations, instead of around individual circumstances, seems extremely overbroad to me. Have I misread you?

The poor have two common enemies. First, gross economic inequality. Second, those who say they have no common enemy.

Merry Christmas.

And returning to the point of my comments, no matter the amount panhandlers make, those needing help with their car repairs, utility bills and rent and mortgage payments are in the top 20% of global wealth, and many are in the top 5%. Fast offerings are primarily used to benefit the (global standard) wealthy.

I belief that the LDS Church most important purpose is to prepare for the realization of the Abrahamic covenant. The Redeemer Jesus’ purpose is to unite the divided children of God, our Father in heaven.

How marvelous are His works, He has given those who receive His message temples to worship Him with a pure intent. To the world, who do not know Him, He has given the blessings of technology and the ability to learn of the wicked nature of those in authority.

The LDS Church charitable activities, fast offering, perpetual education fund, and work with the Catholic charities, etc should be applauded, but it is done to prepare the field for harvest. It is not all of His Works. What part do we play in it, . . . just write a check?

I know the Anointed Jesus and worship Him. What I am looking out for is an LDS “Alma”, the one who was present in King Noah’s Court at the trial of Abinadi. Alma became a leader in the opposition to King Noah’s abominations. He led the Nephite and restored the essence of the gospel.

In our ward priesthood meeting, after quorum busness is finished, our program follows with a Missionary and a Home Teaching moments. It seems that the same men give their testimony regarding these efforts during the last 6 days. However, during the priesthood lesson we always have good lessons and a good learning experience.

This tells me that the lesson Jesus taught that rich young ruler, [parable Matt 19: 19-26] is still not understood. We enjoy participation in a good lesson, but it is learning by doing that is wanting.

“There’s a reason the poor of the world want to come to America where even panhandlers make $5-20 per hour. . .”

You figure if you repeat this often enough people will think it’s true? in reality, there isn’t enough good information out there to support a figure this high, and even the anecdotal evidence is pretty sketchy.

There seem to be only two decent studies with anything like reliable data. One in 2001 in Toronto showed a median reported panhandling income of $200/month U.S. ($300 Canadian) – equivalent to about $245 in 2009. Another in 1986 in Chicago showed a mean reported panhandling income of $7/month – equivalent to about $14 in 2009.

Even if panhandlers could occasionally make $5-20 per hour, studies also show that in general they couldn’t sustain this level of income for even an entire day, much less a month, week, or year.