To wit, I live in one of the nicest places in the entire world in central Orange County, CA. Master planned community, lots of capital floating around, etc. It is quite common in EQ for the discussion to become one of “how do I raise my children in such a great place and still keep them grounded and unspoiled.” And we aren’t talking about others spoiling them; we are talking about the parents spoiling them out of a concern to give them a nice life.

For example, my parents send me $100 every year for my birthday. I expect it now. If I were to only get $20 this July, I would probably be miffed. I feel entitled to $100 on my birthday from my parents. On the flip side, if I were to go to Chik-Fil-A and find out that some stranger paid my meal once as a kind gesture, I would hardly demand that experience to repeat each time I go out to eat.

To me, it seems the closer the relationship, the more likely we are to feel entitled. What am I missing?

Outside the U.S., the church often partners with other aid organizations so I don’t know if there is a basis or not for the claim that the LDS system is far superior. Actually, I don’t know if there is a basis for this claim within the U.S either.

In addition to Ruby K. Payne’s books, I have discovered the work of scholars Lipina and Colombo, whose text _Poverty and Brain Development During Childhood_ reveals that there is an actual cerebral breakdown (brain damage) that results from the years of abuse, neglect, and malnutrition so common to most poor upbringings. This means that we can no more judge people raised in poverty as “undeserving” or “acting entitled” than we can judge special-needs persons as having brought their condition upon themselves. This is something that middle class and upper class children don’t experience, so church leaders hailing from those cozier, more comfortable backgrounds should never judge.

The LDS way out of poverty has never been through faceless welfare. And it works far, far better than the world’s way out of poverty.

He also came very close to redefining obedience. It was a great talk.

I think the same concept works in reverse. When we hear about starving children in Africa, their plight is so distant, just a matter of words and some stock photo, that the effect or draw towards charity is weakened. If Jimmy down the street is starving your relationship with Jimmy plays a role and you more freely give and your level of Vincent is raised. It is just more real and tangible. You know and can see the effects.