President Monson’s Caring for the Poor and Needy Purpose of the Church

[Anonymous]

So, years ago when TSM took over the presidency, I started hearing about the four-fold PURPOSES of the church rather than the traditional Three-fold Mission of the Church. The four purposes were, I believe, Perfecting the Saints, Redeeming the Dead, Proclaiming the Gospel and Caring for the Poor and Needy. This added the Poor and Needy purpose to the original three components of the mission listed above. Thsi was very hush hush and low profile, but I heard there was in fact a change to this new statement of the church’s mission/purpose.

Since those four purposes were proclaimed, I stopped hearing them taught and reiterated at church and in meetings. Previously, the 3-fold mission was constantly shared and harped upon in lessons.

My feeling was that although we have a welfare program, no one wants to broadcast it lest we get more welfare requests, many unfounded and full of work to filter them out. It would hurt fast offering deficits etcetera. Granted, we consider it important to care for the poor and needy, but it’s one of those things you do, but don’t broadcast it, lest it get overburdened….It’s always been that way in the Wards I served within, regarding our welfare program anyway…

A few minutes ago, in TSM’s funeral proceedings, Elder Eyring metntioned that TSM cared deeply about caring for the poor and needy. Do you ever wonder if you’ll see a quiet return to the Three-Fold Mission as originally crafted, with the Caring for Poor and Need purpose fading back into our day-to-day local activities, without being a prominent “purpose of the church? Now that TSM has passed on? I think there is a chance we will stop hearing about the four-fold purposes, and see a quiet return to the 3 fold mission after time has faded TSM’s legacy into the melting pot of history….that way we can talk about the original three-fold purpose openly again without the risks associated with advertising the purpose to care for the poor and needy – and its undesirable outcomes.

[Secondary question — why call these “purposes” rather than sticking with their role as “missions”?).

[Anonymous]

My two cents: “Caring for the Poor and Needy” is one of the few missions of the Church I can stand behind. I think perfectionism can be damaging, and telling everyone “My way is the one, true, best way” is narrowminded. “Proclaiming the gospel” might be more than that, but 80% of what I hear in Church is how awesome the Church is. 15% is theoretical and speculative. And only about 5% is directed towards good and proper living. I can respect “Redeeming the dead”, because of the focus on serving others, but I’d rather turn attention to the living. Plus, it feels wrong to proxy the dead without their say-so. “But the dead have the choice to accept or reject…” Still feels wrong.

Psychologically, having “purposes” is better than having “missions”. Why? Missions are incomplete when you start them, and completed when you finish. They are failed when they are not done, and over when they are. Purposes are a consistant way of life. They are much more focused on the progress and day-to-day successes, over the end goal. Hence, I believe purpose is more powerful than mission.

[Anonymous]

I hope caring for the poor and needy doesn’t fade anymore than it already has. I don’t think it ever really took its place among the other three and I think that’s because it wasn’t “preached” enough. Just a few months ago the topic of “four purposes” came up in PH meeting and fully half those present never heard there was another mission of the church – even though it’s actually in the handbook.

I like calling them purposes rather than missions. In my FC I have often questioned the need for a church (or “THE church”). Calling them purposes does give the church a reason to exist, although not necessarily totally in my way of thinking. (Three of them are about perpetuating the church’s existence 😯 after all. And I like Givens’ ideas on the subject better.)

But here’s the thing – we as a people mostly don’t how to care for the poor and needy. There are individuals among us who most certainly do, and I think TSM was one of them. There are chances for work all around just now, opportunities right in our way. I think most members think they are caring for the poor and needy by paying fast offerings or perhaps contributing to the humanitarian fund. I think those are worthy causes and do help people. But there’s so much more individuals can do. I also think this is a part of the problem for Millennials. They want to do real service and see real results and putting money in an envelope doesn’t cut it. And the other part of the issue is that the church could facilitate such opportunities more than it does. [Stepping off soapbox.]

[Author]

Posts