Foreboding

[Farmer]

As for me, OI and Book of Ruth, I think you're both right, and both wrong. OI, you would take the shirt off your back and give it to who ever the Prophet asked you to. And BofR, OI has a point. If you would share it all, why aren't you now. Yet, the truth is you will share and have a wonderful heart.

To say ahead of the circumstance what you will do/would do in such and such a scenario is a little short sighted. I think you are both saints and we are all trying to become such. And as a result of that, you will do what is right.

Bottom line, each of you will do what the Spirit asks of you when the moment comes. I think that is our goal.

Amen

[7cylon7]

Zowie,

In all honesty, I am not that far from where you are: I have two friends, one was our EQ president when we moved into this ward. Hard worker, humble and just a great, great guy. They have had some financial difficulties over the last 18 months, and if even worst times hit and they needed anything I had, I would give it to them. My other friend is from a wealthy family - family business does millions per year in profit (his father is half owner) he is making close to six figures himself. Lives in a $250,000 house, $50,000 hybrid, $5,000 TV and also makes it very clear to everyone that he has the "best that money can buy" and yes, even with his friends, if you buy something, he compares it to his better version.

Now despite all this, he has about $50,000 in CC debt, and jas, probably at best, a month or two of food storage. I've warned him constantly about debt and food storage, but I think he feels that even in a worse case scenario that he can go to his father and everything will be all right (probably true). But if it wasn't, even though he and his family are friends for many years, I would have a hard, HARD time sharing with him if doing so put my own family at risk. I would also have a very difficult time sharing until I saw that he was truly humbled and had changed some of his views. (i.e. he has flatly said that most poor people are pretty much a waste of space, he definitely feels himself to be a cut above most of humanity, and their family perspective on the business is they feel that they are doing mankind a service by providing employment to so many people, without ever acknowledging that their family wealth was largely built upon being one of the cheapest as far as paying a fair wage or benefits - I worked for them for almost ten years, and trust me, it wasn't a sweat shop, but they were definitely very much about building the family wealth and paying skilled employees the bare minimum that they soulc get away with.

Anyway, as you can see I have some issues. I would not let his family starve either, but they would earn every grain of wheat or rice they got from me, and I would see to it that his attitudes towards those less fortunate changed.

And Rand - thank you very much for not judging. I am indeed not quite the selfish @#$ I make myself out to be in that last post. And I admit that many of my attitudes displayed in that last post do need some serious adjusting. But for those who have had the warnings and the opportunity, I simply cannot believe that it will be or should be as simple as driving down to the bishop's storehouse and picking up their food storage.

edit: I also want to say, my wealthy friend has a lot of good qualities. Aside from his elitist attitudes he is in fact a great guy, and though it doesn't show I love him about as much as I love anyone. But I do feel that if the feathers hit the fan, there are some lessons that he needs to learn.

What $250,000 house... that is nothing.... please 250,000 i cheap.

[Book of Ruth]

Wow, my comment stirred some feelings. Here is my point. When everything falls apart, do you keep your humanity? I think that most of us do. It's not about the food storage. Do you love your fellowman when it is probably the most difficult to do so?

A personal example that we can probably all relate to is: my family has rental property, which we have a family living in one of the rentals who doesn't pay their rent, the bishop actually asked us to let a few months of rent go. The church pays the utilities, the state pays for their food and medical. So, when our ward asked for additional donations for Christmas, I was very tempted to be like here you go, as long as so and so who has already taken and taken from my family does not get one cent of this money.

But, there it is. Are we not all beggars? I really need the blessings, and so I need faith and trust that what I give with a willing heart will grant me some type of peace from all that goes on with life. I think it has. Yeah, I gave the money, no stipulations (which wouldn't of been well received), and more important, I was happy to do it. My life was blessed whatmore could I have received?

[lost ark]

Concerning everyone in the church who has some type of food and/or staples in storage. Everyone has a different kind of supply, some have wheat, some have canned goods, and so on.

This I agree with. Most have no supply. Some have canned goods. Some others have a year's supply of wheat and milk and call it good. A very few have a true year's supply of food. Few consider shelter or medical needs.

Is it possible that our faith will be tested even further through a request (to put it lightly) for everyone with any type of storage, whatever it may be, to be taken to a Bishops storehouse to be distributed from there?

I do not believe this will happen. But for the sake of argument, let's say it does happen. Let's say the bishops call for all food storage to be brought down to the storehouse. The cannery that serves hundreds of thousands of families? The cannery that has parking for less than 20 cars? Is this the place that is supposed to distribute food in an orderly manner to thousands upon thousands of needy? Or is the food to be taken to the local church building? Great. Do we take ALL of our food down there? What about home canned goods? Do I take down my foods that I have canned in a manner that is not approved by the USDA? What about those jars where I re-used lids--a big no-no for many because of the increased potential for botulism? What about food that is beyond its "best by" or expiration date? What about the rusted cans? What about the home-canned butter? It's totally not approved. What about home-canned foods that are a year old, and passed what is considered acceptable by the county extension folks? Do any of these foods go down to the bishop? Would I be wrong by holding back foods that I wouldn't serve to others, but am comfortable serving to my family?

Am I supposed to take down cooking utensils as well? Because many women do not actually know how to cook. They can't make bread. They don't own a rolling pin, so they can't roll out tortillas. They don't have the recipes, and they don't have the experience. If power is out, and is expected to be out for an extended period of time, am I supposed to take down all my alternative methods for cooking as well? What good will most of the food be without a means to prepare it?

For those who plan to be on the receiving end: Was I supposed to plan my food storage around your specific dietary needs? We have one boy in our ward who is deathly allergic to tree nuts. He can't safely eat anything that comes from my house. I frequently just wipe out a container, rather than wash something that doesn't really need washing. And I can tree nuts as well. Sometimes we'd fill a can and then decide we didn't have enough to can it, so we empty the can, wipe it out, and refill with something else. Or sometimes I'd throw in a package of candy or nuts with the wheat, so that there is a little treat when that can is opened. I don't use the cannery. I borrow the canner and can everything with my family at home. What about those who are lactose-intolerant? What about the celiacs or others that need a gluten-free diet? My father-in-law is incredibly limited on what he can eat. Are others supposed to plan for him? Are others supposed to store all the freeze dried fruits he needs/wants? What about the diabetics or others with special medical needs? Are we supposed to plan for them as well? Or are we to plan for our own families? Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of trying to supply everything everybody wants?

Just like the "plan of salvation", there will be those who run across the finish line, and there will be those who crawl across it, but all get the prize because of their efforts.
Think about it, everyone that takes their storage, small or large, to a storehouse would eat better, and for a longer period of time, than those who retain theirs. Thus, men, women and children who have taken what they have and put it in the storehouse would ultimately eat better, have blankets, toiletries and so on.

Is this some kind of "new math"? Or are you planning on some major miracles to be wrought for Church members who were taught and warned for years to store food, but were too rebellious to do so? Can you cite such an instance anywhere in the scriptures or Church history where such a thing has occurred?

How are the 1% who stored a wide variety of foods going to be eating better if they share their food with the 5% who stored only wheat and milk and the 94% who stored nothing?

It could fall under the law of consecration.

It could. It would certainly be easier than sharing, or not, with others personally. Take all your stuff down and let someone else worry about it. Then wait in line to get back what you need.

And by taking all storage to a safer place, one does not have to worry about one's neighbor coming to rob or plunder,

Well, this might work in Utah. But for those of us who live in the real world, things will be a bit different. Our neighbors and others who have learned we are Mormon-so-we-must-have-a-year's-supply-of-food are not necessarily going to believe us when we say that we took all the food down to the Church. These people will get angry. Remember, they will be hungry. There are already people who believe that Mormons are evil. Most of them know that we have been commanded to store food. What they do not know is that there are very, very few of us who actually follow that counsel. They also believe that if Mormons tell them they don't have food, it's because their Church leaders have told them to say that. [/quote]

nor would one have to worry about the neighbors who have nothing. This responsibilty would fall on the Bishop.

Like bishops don't already have enough to do that they are going to want to decide whom to feed what.

What I keep trying (and failing!) to convey is that it is not a matter of whether we WILL share, it is a matter of whether we CAN share. I cannot store food to accommodate every dietary and medical condition. I can only do that for my family. When our society collapses, it will not be a matter of just not having food in the stores. In that situation we are also likely to lack fuel for cooking. We'll be using campstoves, barbeques, solar ovens, Dutch ovens.... If we lack electricity, I will barely, just barely, be able to feed my family--make the bread, mix the milk, cook the beans, wash clothes by hand, raise the garden, dry the excess produce, save seeds for next year, and all the thousands of other things that need to be done. I will not be able to do this for others, not because I won't, but because I can't. And I really don't believe that Christ will decide to enable me to provide for others what they should be providing for themselves (I am not talking about the disabled, ill, or truly needy).

“How many of you have wheat or flour to last you a year? If you are without bread, how much wisdom can you boast, and of what real utility are your talents, if you cannot procure for yourselves and save against a day of scarcity those substances designed to sustain your natural lives?... If you cannot provide for your natural lives, how can you expect to have wisdom to obtain eternal lives?… If you have not attained ability to provide for your natural wants, and for a wife and a few children, what have you to do with heavenly things?” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:68.

[Book of Ruth]

I just want to know if we are all on the same page as regards to the law of consecration. My view is that we will not be asked to take our food storage to the church, or stake center, or wherever it maybe until AFTER we have been prepared as a people to do so.

My only evidence of this, is that there have been major disasters occure all over the world already, including Katrina, and the law of consecration has not been inacted in any of these circumstances.

The sharing of food storage if something major happens to me will be more similar to fast offerings. This is personal, but the giver does not dictate who receives the help. I hope this makes sense.

I believe, that the law of consecration was a higher spiritual law given, where everyone who lives it prospers. And, if this is the case, those who do not live the gospel standards will not be a part of it anyway.

[Original_Intent]

I just want to know if we are all on the same page as regards to the law of consecration. My view is that we will not be asked to take our food storage to the church, or stake center, or wherever it maybe until AFTER we have been prepared as a people to do so.

My only evidence of this, is that there have been major disasters occure all over the world already, including Katrina, and the law of consecration has not been inacted in any of these circumstances.

The sharing of food storage if something major happens to me will be more similar to fast offerings. This is personal, but the giver does not dictate who receives the help. I hope this makes sense.

I believe, that the law of consecration was a higher spiritual law given, where everyone who lives it prospers. And, if this is the case, those who do not live the gospel standards will not be a part of it anyway.

My understanding of consecration is it does not involve turning anything over to the bishop or anyone else. The law of consecration is not the United Order. My understanding of the law of consecration is that you dedicate your time, talents etc. to the building of the Kingdom of God. It does not mean redistribution of production amongst everyone, it does not mean having all things in common (although that may be one METHOD of consecration.) Anyone could live the law of consecration right now. It means that every action and every expenditure should be evaluated if it is being made to to build the Kingdom of God or is it being spent for some other reason? If you are always anxiously engaged in building the kingdom, including how you spend any money you earn, in my opinion you are living the law of consecration.

I'm not doing it - not even close. But if you think a program has to be instituted before you can live it - in MY OPINION you are incorrect.

[waking]

THanks OI for the clarification. I was begining to think I must have missed the lesson on that United Order at the second coming!!! Holy cow, I don't think many if any are living the law of consecration. I really feel the economic collapse is very near, but I don't feel very spiritually prepared for all of the other "crap" that is going to hit the fan!!!

[Book of Ruth]

I just want to know if we are all on the same page as regards to the law of consecration. My view is that we will not be asked to take our food storage to the church, or stake center, or wherever it maybe until AFTER we have been prepared as a people to do so.

My only evidence of this, is that there have been major disasters occure all over the world already, including Katrina, and the law of consecration has not been inacted in any of these circumstances.

The sharing of food storage if something major happens to me will be more similar to fast offerings. This is personal, but the giver does not dictate who receives the help. I hope this makes sense.

I believe, that the law of consecration was a higher spiritual law given, where everyone who lives it prospers. And, if this is the case, those who do not live the gospel standards will not be a part of it anyway.

My understanding of consecration is it does not involve turning anything over to the bishop or anyone else. The law of consecration is not the United Order. My understanding of the law of consecration is that you dedicate your time, talents etc. to the building of the Kingdom of God. It does not mean redistribution of production amongst everyone, it does not mean having all things in common (although that may be one METHOD of consecration.) Anyone could live the law of consecration right now. It means that every action and every expenditure should be evaluated if it is being made to to build the Kingdom of God or is it being spent for some other reason? If you are always anxiously engaged in building the kingdom, including how you spend any money you earn, in my opinion you are living the law of consecration.

I'm not doing it - not even close. But if you think a program has to be instituted before you can live it - in MY OPINION you are incorrect.

OI This is a fair point, one I hope you are right about.

[Book of Ruth]

OI could you expound on the United Order? Also, do you know how they tried to live the law of consecration in Kirkland?

[davedan]

Yes, that is correct. the United Order is an economic system that helps people as a community keep the Law of Consecration. But anyone can keep the Law of Consecration on their own individually. You don't need a system or program to keep a covenant or be righteous. However, equitable systems sure help.

Many people argue that our current system is all the fault of individual wickedness. While there is truth to that. There is also value to introducing more equatable systems that facilitate righteousness.

[Original_Intent]

OI could you expound on the United Order? Also, do you know how they tried to live the law of consecration in Kirkland?

Well, I found a good number of articles, and a good number of them claim they ARE one and the same. However, I found some that laso differentiated, and even one where President Benson said essentially identical to what I did - which is likely where my understanding of it came from.

Here is the article I found, bolding is mine:

One of the common misconceptions concerning the law of consecration is that it is often conflated with the United Order. When we think that these two are one in the same thing we run into difficulties understanding them. When we don’t properly understand the law, we can’t live it. When we don’t properly understand the United Order, we can’t learn from it. The law of consecration is not the United Order. The United Order was an economic and administrative method of living the law of consecration, but even as such is commonly misunderstood and blended with the law of consecration. President Benson explained:
“Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom” (D&C 105:5). Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementation in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.1

It is true that as a Church we are not practicing the United Order today, and that something very similar to it may be instituted again sometime in the future, but this has no bearing on whether or not we can or should be living and practicing “the Law” today. President Benson noted the eternal nature of this law:

The law of consecration is a law for an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. God, the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and all holy beings abide by this law. It is an eternal law.2

Because this law is eternal, and because our entrance into the celestial kingdom depends on it, Steven Harper has noted that Orson Pratt taught that “there is nothing ‘laid down in the revelations, requiring us to take [a] particular method’” with regard to its implementation3. In other words, the law of consecration does not rely on the United Order to function. Other modes and means can be used to live the main tenets of this law. The United Order may be the most ideal economic form, but the principles of the law of consecration may be lived by each of us today, and involves much more than material possessions. Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught that as we begin to live the principles of the law of consecration “[e]ventually our wills can be ’swallowed up in the will of the Father’ as we are ‘willing to submit ... even as a child doth submit to his father’ (see Mosiah 15:7; Mosiah 3:19)”4.

The Law of Consecration
What is the law of consecration? President Benson once gave a definition in brief:

We covenant to live the law of consecration. This law is that we consecrate our time, talents, strength, property, and money for the upbuilding of the kingdom of God on this earth and the establishment of Zion. Until one abides by the laws of obedience, sacrifice, the gospel, and chastity, he cannot abide the law of consecration, which is the law pertaining to the celestial kingdom. “For if you will that I give you place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you” (D&C 78:7).5

When we understand that all things ultimately belong to the Lord, and we love the Lord with all our hearts, we are willing to submit anything and everything that we have and are to Him to be utilized as He sees most fit in the building up of the kingdom of God. The law of consecration is not primarily material in scope. Quite the contrary, it includes all things. Elder Maxwell noted this distinction:

We tend to think of consecration only as yielding up, when divinely directed, our material possessions. But ultimate consecration is the yielding up of oneself to God. Heart, soul, and mind were the encompassing words of Christ in describing the first commandment, which is constantly, not periodically, operative (see Matt. 22:37). If kept, then our performances will, in turn, be fully consecrated for the lasting welfare of our souls (see 2 Ne. 32:9).6

The United Order & Its Principles
What is the United Order? It was the means by which the early Saints implemented the law of consecration economically. Briefly, the United Order involved members consecrating their property to the Church, receiving an inheritance back as a stewardship, all by deed, and thereafter consecrating any surplus produced to the bishop’s storehouse for the support of the poor and needy, for the purchasing of lands, building worship houses, and the New Jerusalem.

There are certain aspects of the United Order that are not commonly understood, but which lend greater insight into the principles upon which it operated. One of these is understanding what exactly was consecrated and what was received back as a stewardship. Often when we speak of the United Order we mention that it was the giving of everything the Saints had to the Church. Rarely do we talk about what they received back. Some of the original deeds have survived which show us how this functioned. Steven Harper gives a good example of one of these deeds that belonged to Levi Jackman, one of the early Saints:

He and other converts gathered to Zion in Jackson County, Missouri. There he deeded his property to Bishop Partridge, on behalf of the Church, “of [his] own free will.” It was not much – “sundry articles of furniture valued thirty seven dollars, also two beds, bedding, and feathers valued forty four dollars fifty cents, also three axes and other tools valued eleven dollars and twenty five cents” – but it was all he possessed. In return, Brother Jackman received a parcel of land in present-day Kansas City and “sundry articles of furniture . . . two beds bedding and feathers . . . also three axes and other tools.” Brother Jackman offered the Lord all he had. The Lord returned his meager offering and added a handsome farm.7

[Original_Intent]

Thanks for making me research this. My wife and I just discussed this and we agree (based on what I found) that we should be striving to live the law of consecration right now. I don;t expect we will do so perfectly, but we are going to work on improving in that direction.

So I very much appreciate the challenge to expound on the United Order. It opened my eyes to something and I feel very very good about this.

[freedomforall]

To Lost Ark, thanks for your input, but I want to re-emphasize that in my post I started out with "Is it possible. . ..?"

We may not be asked to take food, etc to a storage facility but I ask, "Are we willing to do so if asked?" Does the Lord want a willing heart above action in many cases? For one...Abraham sacrificing his son. The Lord wanted to know if Abraham was "willing" to carry out the command and stopped him before executing the action. But the giving/sharing of our substance wouldn't be as stressful, wouldn't you agree?

You have a lot of valid concerns, L A, many of which are shared by a multitude of Saints, I'm sure. I also think that if we were asked to contribute there would be a "selection" process as to what should be brought. And I'm only surmising this type of action happening due to a horrific event where many people have lost their homes because of an earthquake or because of an economical breakdown, or whatever we have been warned about for the last seventy years or so.

Could anyone cite the very first time the saints were admonished to have a food storage? I remember as far back as the late fifties.

There has also been a lot of good information posted herein from others for me to glean from.

[lost ark]

To Lost Ark, thanks for your input, but I want to re-emphasize that in my post I started out with "Is it possible. . ..?"

I will acknowledge that it is possible. I even spent many years thinking that this would be probable. However, based on my study of the scriptures and words of the prophets, I do not think it is likely. I also think that those who are planning to eat what others have stored, but have not stored anything themselves, should come up with a different plan.

We may not be asked to take food, etc to a storage facility but I ask, "Are we willing to do so if asked?" Does the Lord want a willing heart above action in many cases? For one...Abraham sacrificing his son. The Lord wanted to know if Abraham was "willing" to carry out the command and stopped him before executing the action. But the giving/sharing of our substance wouldn't be as stressful, wouldn't you agree?

The Lord knew Abraham was willing. It was Abraham who needed to learn something about Abraham. As one who has also made an Abraham-like sacrifice (see below), of course sharing food is nothing in comparison. The Lord can and does work miracles. But I have yet to come up with an example of where He feeds a rebellious people and spares them from the prophesied famine.

Could anyone cite the very first time the saints were admonished to have a food storage? I remember as far back as the late fifties.

My faith does not lead me to think the Lord will provide us with roast pigs, bread already buttered, etc.; he will give us the ability to raise the grain, to obtain the fruits of the earth, to make habitations, to procure a few boards to make a box, and when harvest comes, giving us the grain, it is for us to preserve it—to save the wheat until we have one, two, five, or seven years’ provisions on hand, until there is enough of the staff of life saved by the people to [provide] bread [for] themselves and those who will come here seeking for safety (DBY, 291–92).

Brethren, learn. You have learned a good deal, it is true; but learn more; learn to sustain yourselves; lay up grain and flour, and save it against a day of scarcity. Sisters, do not ask your husbands to sell the last bushel of grain you have to buy something for you out of the stores, but aid your husbands in storing it up against a day of want, and always have a year’s, or two, provision on hand (DBY, 293).

Above two quotes copied from lds.org. DBY=Discourses of Brigham Young. http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 82620aRCRD

Joseph in Egypt began a food storage program. Had the Egyptians been wise, they would have stored food themselves. Instead, they sold their grain to obtain more of the worldly goods they desired. Joseph bought the grain from them, and they eventually sold themselves into slavery to feed themselves and their families. In Leviticus 25, we read that the children of Israel were to store food so that the land could rest every 7th year. At the jubilee, the land was allowed to rest for two years. Food storage/self-reliance/provident living are eternal principles. We don't just gather our food and forget about it. We are to know how to use it. Life is not going to be very pleasant for those who are accustomed to manufactured food and who suddenly find that they can't make nice bread from whole wheat, and that whatever they do make from it gives them the trots. Same for beans. And just how much do people really like powdered milk? Are your children going to drink it?

We don't just buy a tent or a camp stove and forget about it. We are to be able to provide for our families, whatever the circumstances. How are we to even think about being able to serve our neighbors and truly share the gospel if we can't even feed and shelter our families in a crisis?


*At 17-weeks of gestation, a routine ultrasound showed that our son had no kidneys. He would die, most certainly before birth according to the doctors. We knew immediately that we were not to pray for a miracle to spare his life. The miracle I prayed for was to be able to give him up, if the Lord had left it up to me. I could not have done that the day of the ultrasound. I could the day he was born, alive, and stayed with us for 90 minutes.

[Songbird]

*At 17-weeks of gestation, a routine ultrasound showed that our son had no kidneys. He would die, most certainly before birth according to the doctors. We knew immediately that we were not to pray for a miracle to spare his life. The miracle I prayed for was to be able to give him up, if the Lord had left it up to me. I could not have done that the day of the ultrasound. I could the day he was born, alive, and stayed with us for 90 minutes.

Lost ark...
this has an asterisk in front of it, does it tie into something you said? I am so sorry for your loss...Did this happen recently?

[lost ark]

Songbird,

I had just mentioned above in the discussion of Abraham that I would post the explanation below. This baby was born 10 years ago, and he has been a great blessing in our lives. There is absolutely nothing to be sorry for or about. He is a perfect child. My children have a perfect brother that they want to be with someday. I have a perfect son. If only that would make me a perfect mom.

It's probably not something others can easily understand without having experienced. It's not something I would ever wish on anybody, but I wouldn't trade it for the world. And I would do it all again in a heartbeat.

[Book of Ruth]

OI Wrote:
Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught that as we begin to live the principles of the law of consecration “[e]ventually our wills can be ’swallowed up in the will of the Father’ as we are ‘willing to submit ... even as a child doth submit to his father’ (see Mosiah 15:7; Mosiah 3:19)”4.
But ultimate consecration is the yielding up of oneself to God. Heart, soul, and mind were the encompassing words of Christ in describing the first commandment, which is constantly, not periodically, operative (see Matt. 22:37). If kept, then our performances will, in turn, be fully consecrated for the lasting welfare of our souls (see 2 Ne. 32:9).6
My wife and I just discussed this and we agree (based on what I found) that we should be striving to live the law of consecration right now. I don’t expect we will do so perfectly, but we are going to work on improving in that direction.

I completely agree with this. We too are striving to live this law right now. Thanks a ton OI for your patience with me. In my own inept way, this was what I was trying to say, you've said it beautifully.

[Original_Intent]

Before last night I had always interpreted the temple covenant to be we were WILLING to live the law of consecration when it was implemented again.

Again thanks for the prodding, these things mean much more when you discover it yourself than when you are "told".

You are the patient one - thanks!

[Rosabella]

I like this quote. It pretty sums up my idea of what my food storage is and what I am willing to do with it.

All Things are the Lord’s

Nothing that we have is our own. Just because we have something in our possession does not mean that we have true ownership of it, and this is particularly the case when we view our “things” through a gospel lens. The Lord has declared:

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. (D&C 104:14-15)

We often make the fallacy of believing that when we move material “things” into our living space that they now become “ours,” and “ours” alone, belonging solely to us, and that no one else has any rights to them but us. Once things are “ours,” we believe that we have every right to do with them what we will, regardless of those around us. They seem even off-limits to God. The reasoning goes, “I’ve earned this, so it is now mine, to do with as I desire.”

Everything and anything I have including my life is the Lord's to do with as He pleases.

[lost ark]

I certainly hope it isn't understood or suggested that those on this forum would think of withholding anything from the Lord.

What I am trying to communicate is that the Lord does punish the wicked and rebellious with famine. I would categorize as rebellious those members of the Church who do not store food, who have been members long enough to have heard the counsel, and who have had the opportunity to store food. While I would not take it upon me to determine whether Brother A or Sister B is rebellious, I think it is safe to say that when 95% of the members do not store food, at least some of those members are rebelling.

As we have been counseled to learn from history and apply the scriptures to our own lives, I challenge anyone to cite an example where the Lord has spared the rebellious from the consequences of a prophesied famine. The Lord gives us warnings through the prophets so that the wicked can repent and so that all can prepare. And when His patience has worn thin, the prophesied famine comes.

Moses warned the children of Israel what would happen if they were not obedient. In Deuteronomy 28, he said they would eat their children. Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied the same. It may have taken a few hundred years, but some of them did eat their children. Lehi likely heard Jeremiah and was warned to escape. As Zedekiah's son, Mulek also may have learned of some prophecies. I don't know of any statements or scripture regarding his righteousness, but he could probably see that things weren't going well and decided to leave.

We have had many modern prophets and apostles warn us of the coming famines and such. Some of those who have stored and prepared may lose their food storage in disasters. But those who have truly prepared, who didn't just store food and forget about it, but also learned the skills of self-reliance and provident living, will have the means to provide for their families.

[Songbird]

I would just like to make a correction to those who are spelling Kirtland, the wrong way. Kirtland is the correct spelling of the town.

[freedomforall]

LA wrote: I also think that those who are planning to eat what others have stored, but have not stored anything themselves, should come up with a different plan.

Is it safe to say that people (saints) that live in rentals desiring to have a years supply of food but haven't the room to store not more than a few weeks worth, should not be exempt from sharing from those who have an abundance? Sometimes conditions do not allow for everything that can be done...to be done. There again, there is a big difference between "I'm not going to do this", and "I really want to do this, but conditions don't allow me to?" One is willing, the other--not. If three weeks of storage is all a person has due to circumstance, and yet this person is willing to share it, isn't this just as acceptable as someone having two years supply?

I agree with you that those who are not willing to follow council and store "nothing" may be in jeopardy by receiving nothing, although I lean toward the idea that there will be someone with the needed compassion to share with them in a crisis, anyway.

I am reminded of these scriptures in reference to this idea:

Mosiah 4:19
For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
Mosiah 4:16
And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
Mosiah 4:24
And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

So where is the line to be drawn?

[Original_Intent]

freedomfighter,

I would agree with you to the extent that circumstances really would not allow it. But would our hypotheticla person in the rental, if they knew that in 3 months that there would be no food whatsoever available, would they "find a way" to store more than three weeks supply? i.e. stack sacks of wheat in the corner of a room if that was the best they could do?

Most of the "circumstances wouldn't allow it" are only excuses. A legitimate reason would be laws that forbid "hoarding" more than a certain supply of food - andI would be "stretching" said laws to the limit.

[freedomforall]

freedomfighter,

I would agree with you to the extent that circumstances really would not allow it. But would our hypotheticla person in the rental, if they knew that in 3 months that there would be no food whatsoever available, would they "find a way" to store more than three weeks supply? i.e. stack sacks of wheat in the corner of a room if that was the best they could do?

Most of the "circumstances wouldn't allow it" are only excuses. A legitimate reason would be laws that forbid "hoarding" more than a certain supply of food - andI would be "stretching" said laws to the limit.

Good point. I simply think we need to remember that we all are beggars.

[Squally]

freedomfighter,

I would agree with you to the extent that circumstances really would not allow it. But would our hypotheticla person in the rental, if they knew that in 3 months that there would be no food whatsoever available, would they "find a way" to store more than three weeks supply? i.e. stack sacks of wheat in the corner of a room if that was the best they could do?

Most of the "circumstances wouldn't allow it" are only excuses. A legitimate reason would be laws that forbid "hoarding" more than a certain supply of food - andI would be "stretching" said laws to the limit.

Good point. I simply think we need to remember that we all are beggars.

And yet as beggars we are still comanded to provide for out families and be self sufficient. If I was just a beggar I wouldn't need to be self sufficient or provide for anyone (including myself) as everything would be given. Yet I do have to work for that which I recieve.