And specifically…

1. Members have the primary responsibility for their own spiritual, material, and social well-being. President Spencer W. Kimball taught: “No true Latter-day Saint, while physically or emotionally able will voluntarily shift the burden of his own or his family’s well-being to someone else. So long as he can, under the inspiration of the Lord and with his own labors, he will supply himself and his family with the spiritual and temporal necessities of life” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1977, 124; or Ensign, Nov. 1977, 77–78).

2. When helping members in need, we should not remove the responsibility they have to solve their own problems. Elder Marvin J. Ashton gave this counsel to those who would help others: “One who really understands and practices empathy doesn’t solve another’s problems, doesn’t argue, doesn’t top his story, make accusations, or take away [his] agency. He merely helps the person build his self-reliance and self-image so he can try to find his own solutions” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1981, 128–29; or Ensign, Nov. 1981, 91).

3. Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught: “The [individual] growth required by the gospel plan occurs only in a culture of individual effort and responsibility. It cannot occur in a culture of dependency. Whatever causes us to be dependent on someone else for decisions or resources we could provide for ourselves weakens us spiritually and retards our growth toward what the gospel plan intends us to be” (in Conference Report, Oct. 2003, 42; or Ensign, Nov. 2003, 40).

I think essentially y’all are mis-characterizing my position as something that it is not.

And I think it also has little to do with my own understanding. Of course there are people who make it–but having worked extensively with refugees–those stories are definately, and unforutanely the exception.
As I mentioned earlier, I grew up in poverty, by which I mean I grew-up on welfare–and everyone in my family has climbed out, including my parents. So I certainly recognize it is possible.

I think sometimes the mainstream in the church is to consider poverty a huge—for back of a better workd–sin. Somehow the meaning of being righteous and prosper gets conveluded to mean if you are poor, you are bad.

I am also wondering how people would reconcile not taking care of the poor when they have children. Their children have nos say in the matter. Surely what they really need, besides better off parents, is a hand out.

My experience in So Cal (in particular with Vietnamese immigrants as a missionary) showed me a mixed picture. While many refugees/immigrants are succeeding, the number being left behind and struggling is large and increasing. Maybe the issue is more complex than a blog can fully address.

Here in S. California I am surrounded by people that started much worse off than your hypothetically poor, uneducated Ozark American. People that grew up in war ravaged countries, spent years in relocation camps before arriving in the US with nothing; people who sneaked across the border with no education and little prospects. Yet many of those people have been able to prosper in the US through scrimping, saving, working and having the courage to go out and start a business. It happens, bbell isn’t making things up.

As one who has been on church welfare and been actively involved in Church welfare with my callings: This idea that we make the poor accountable or that we “make them work” is foreign to my experience. The bishop helps people according to their needs and situation. It is the spirit of love, not the punitive spirit, that guides the program. That is why it works.

As for the ridiculous fish statement (not worth repeating): THE BISHOPS STOREHOUSE IS GIVING THE FOOD AWAY TO POOR PEOPLE WITHOUT GUILT AND IN ABUNDANT QUANTITIES. Maybe they are stupid Great Society types too. Again Mosiah Chapter 4, and not Ronald Reagan, is the guide here.

Of course the average person does have the ability to take care of themselves and make good decisions. But theri are a a lot of non-average people who need extra help.

If someone had any problem like alcohol, drugs, sex, etc–we would continue to try and help them stomp and change their lives for as long as it takes. Yet it seems that you are saying that financial poor decision making is unforgivable, and we can help a little–but then tehy are on their own. Shouldn’t we be jsut as compassionate towards this kind of “sin” too?

I refuse to make excuses for people and believe that on average each individual has in them the ability to provide for themselves and their families. Left wing programs as highlighted by the Great Scoiety programs of the mid 1960′s are generally a failure.

You gotta do what works. Welfare reform works as does the LDS Welfare system.