"If ye are prepared ye shall not fear" - LDS doctrine(?)

[SonCatcher]

This morning, I read an article discussing the famed preparedness measures taken by members of the LDS church, particularly regarding an uptick in preparedness activity following the disasters in Japan. The article contains the following snippet:The tradition stems from doctrine - “If ye are prepared ye shall not fear” - established by Joseph Smith when he founded the church in 1830 in upstate New York.

First, I am curious whether “doctrine” is an accurate description (a required belief akin to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation) or is the statement more of a discipline (akin to the Catholic practice of ordaining only celibates - something the press erroneously calls a “doctrine”). Perhaps one of our LDS board members can elaborate on which description is more accurate. This is a secondary goal of conversation.

Second (and the *primary *purpose of conversation): How does the statement “if ye are prepared ye shall not fear” go together with biblical exhortations to dependence upon God.

My opening thoughts: It is always a good idea to make reasonable* preparations for potential known and unknown emergencies. However, placing religious significance on such preparedness seems to me to carry the rist of cultivating an attitude on self-reliance where one should instead have their trust in divine providence.

Thank you for participating.

• “Reasonable” will mean different things to different people. We will not argue its meaning here, thank you.

 

[odile53]

Well, I’m not sure what Joseph Smith wanted the LDS to “be prepared” for.

I have a stock of home-canned food (got some of the recipes from an LDS site, by the way, and they were pretty good,) and keep emergency staples for a couple of weeks without power, simply because I live in the Northeast and as you know, our storms here can be pretty severe. But am I prepared for the end of civilization as we know it? No. The end of the world? Certainly not (my understanding of that is that the world as we know it would be wiped out, anyways.)

I remember during the height of the Cold War, fallout shelters were really popular around here. One of the guys on the rez where I lived till I was about ten years old had a fallout shelter installed behind his house, and hoarded nonperishables, water, and the like down there. What he didn’t count on is that the area has porous rock and a high water table. The underground fallout shelter needed pumps to stay usable, and although he had installed pumps, there was a power failure after a big storm the following spring. He now had a very nice underground swimming pool. After he died, his son had the fallout shelter excavated out and put in a real swimming pool.

Remember the Y2K fears? One of the people who lived in the apartment house that I lived in stockpiled MREs (Meals Ready to Eat,) only to have no interruption of the food supply, the power grid, etc, etc that we were all fearing. I used to joke with coworkers that I had a Y2K compliant coffee maker, and enjoyed the looks on their faces when I explained it was a stovetop percolator.

Do we really want to hang out here in a postapocalyptic scenario? Sounds like a ring of hell in Dante’s Inferno to me. Or at least a Mad Max movie.

So I really don’t know what they (the LDS folks) are “preparing” for. And yes, it does seem to fly in the face of an attitude of dependence on the Lord to me.

 

[valentino]

SonCatcher: Its neither.Its a verse taaken from scripture.LSD evidently take the verse by itself alone which explains very little.

 

[ParkerD]

This morning, I read an article discussing the famed preparedness measures taken by members of the LDS church, particularly regarding an uptick in preparedness activity following the disasters in Japan. The article contains the following snippet:The tradition stems from doctrine - “If ye are prepared ye shall not fear” - established by Joseph Smith when he founded the church in 1830 in upstate New York.

First, I am curious whether “doctrine” is an accurate description (a required belief akin to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation) or is the statement more of a discipline (akin to the Catholic practice of ordaining only celibates - something the press erroneously calls a “doctrine”). Perhaps one of our LDS board members can elaborate on which description is more accurate. This is a secondary goal of conversation.

Second (and the *primary *purpose of conversation): How does the statement “if ye are prepared ye shall not fear” go together with biblical exhortations to dependence upon God.

My opening thoughts: It is always a good idea to make reasonable* preparations for potential known and unknown emergencies. However, placing religious significance on such preparedness seems to me to carry the risk of cultivating an attitude on self-reliance where one should instead have their trust in divine providence.

Thank you for participating.

• “Reasonable” will mean different things to different people. We will not argue its meaning here, thank you.

SonCatcher,

I think you’ve asked a great question. Latter-day Saints are encouraged to be “self-reliant” in providing for their family using a term called “provident living”, but also to be reliant upon God and not on the “arm of the flesh” by acknowledging God’s blessings and that anything we are blessed with in life, whether physically or spiritually, comes from God and not from our own unaided efforts.

The words “If ye are prepared ye shall not fear” are found in Doctrine and Covenants 38, where it also emphasizes “be one” (v. 27) by doing the following: “let every man esteem his brother as himself” (v. 24); “look to the poor and the needy, and administer to their relief that they shall not suffer” (v. 35). So the word “ye” is collective, and refers to spiritual preparation by having charity and benevolence, like a meaning that can be drawn from the parable of the Ten Virgins, as well as to physical preparation by the members looking after the poor and the needy among them and preparing to be of service in whatever way called upon.

Food storage is also emphasized, but not in a panic and rather looking to long-term preparation such as having wheat storage, a way to grind it, honey or sugar, some canned goods, water, and so forth and having an emergency kit that can be grabbed on the way out the door if there were an emergency, so that a family will have a few days without having to rely on outside help and can hopefully even be in a position to help others in a crisis situation.

The article didn’t draw out much of the real meaning from D & C 38, so it was a great question, and very appropriate.

I would say that it is a “doctrine” when looked at in the full context, since it really becomes the doctrine of “consecration” which ties in with looking after the poor and the needy.

 

[SonCatcher]

ParkerD, thanks for bringing more of the context of the verse to light. I scanned through the chapter and really didn’t see anything about stockpiling supplies, however. I suppose that context must have been from a tradition or popular interpretation. (The various hardships the early Mormons faced probably contributed greatly to that meaning)

odile53, thanks for sharing the humorous stories of preparedness measures where “reasonableness” of one person did not necessarily match our own. (I wonder if that guy even thought about the problem that if he ever needed to use his fallout shelter as such then there wouldn’t likely be power for his pumps at all. It would be a terrible prospect to have to choose between drowning and radiation poisoning).

 

[rainman10]

First, I am curious whether “doctrine” is an accurate description (a required belief akin to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation) or is the statement more of a discipline (akin to the Catholic practice of ordaining only celibates - something the press erroneously calls a “doctrine”). Perhaps one of our LDS board members can elaborate on which description is more accurate. This is a secondary goal of conversation./QUOTE]

I am curious. Is there really such a thing as doctrine in the LDS church? Since any doctrine can change at any time because of “new revelation”, is it really doctrine? My understanding of doctrine is that it is unchanging, but discipline can change.

Hope I am not derailing the thread, but the thought just popped into my head and had to ask.

 

[Alix1912]

I think being prepared is a smart thing to do. It is not contrary to depending on God. God has given us brains, common sense, and oftern time to prepare, and oftern warnings to get ready as well. What more do we want from him? He tells us to trust him, but also not test him. I think being unprepared or not using the intellegence that he has given us and just counting on him to fix everything is a form of testing him.

We store extra water, food, and other supplies in our basement incase of emergency.

 

[Z_Ninja]

I think being prepared is a smart thing to do. It is not contrary to depending on God. God has given us brains, common sense, and oftern time to prepare, and oftern warnings to get ready as well. What more do we want from him? He tells us to trust him, but also not test him. I think being unprepared or not using the intellegence that he has given us and just counting on him to fix everything is a form of testing him.

We store extra water, food, and other supplies in our basement incase of emergency.

This makes me think of the story of the man stuck in his house during a flood and waiting for God to save him. I know there are various versions. But, he was first visited by a neighbor on a row boat while the flood was low, and he refused help, then by the Coast Guard in a boat when the water was higher, and finally by the Navy in a helicopter when the man was on his roof as the water was that high. Refusing help each time, he ends up drowning and when he sees God, he asks why he didn’t save the man and God replies, “who do you think sent your neighbor, the Coast Guard and the Navy?”

 

[pinay]

I am curious. Is there really such a thing as doctrine in the LDS church? Since any doctrine can change at any time because of “new revelation”, is it really doctrine? My understanding of doctrine is that it is unchanging, but discipline can change.

Hope I am not derailing the thread, but the thought just popped into my head and had to ask.

Hi rainman10, yes, there is such a thing as doctrine in the LDS Church. Because, God’s truths are eternal.

But, just like when Jesus Christ chose to teach through parables to the masses then expounded the meaning of the parables to his apostles (see Matthew 13), we don’t know ALL the eternal truths as of yet. God may have given us a glimpse of truth then He might expand on it at a later time through revelation And because man is not perfect, we might see the truth and interpret it one way according to our understanding, then later when more truth is revealed we realize our interpretation was not completely accurate.

A good example that Catholics can relate to on this matter is the Mosaic Law versus the Higher Law. Just because Mosaic Law was done away with and replaced with a higher law does not mean that Mosaic law was wrong or non-doctrinal.

Take for example the 10 Commandments versus Jesus’ teaching of only 2 commandments. “Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as God loves you” is a larger truth than the “Thou shalt nots” of Mosaic law. So that, a person healing the sick on the Sabbath may seem to have broken the “Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day holy” so much so that it was a taboo to do so in the olden days, but when faced with the larger truth, it makes it clear that yes, you can heal the sick on the Sabbath. The doctrine never changed - the truth is eternal. The interpretation of the commandment changed when faced with higher understanding.

This is the same for what we call “new revelation” in the LDS Church.

 

[catsrus]

I once had an lds friend tell me that “the needy” they refer to as the recipients of the extra food and water, are only other lds members in good standing.
My friend and his family actually rented a storage unit to store all their extra “stuffs” in. I asked what would they do if a non lds needy person stormed the unit during a crisis. He told me they would probably be shot.
Now this friend I tell of was a bishop in the local lds stake center.

 

[pinay]

My devout Catholic mother has a favorite saying:
"Do your best and God will do the rest."
It’s one of my favorites too.

One aspect of Provident Living is to keep ourselves free from bondage so that we can freely follow God. For example, debt can be a form of bondage. Debt can force us to work so that we can’t attend church - for example - or debt can force us to lower our moral standards when we can’t find any other means to pay it and we are in danger of losing our shelter or food. So that, Provident Living helps us to try to move towards a debt-free standard and living within our means. The goal is to not have any debt except for the mortgage, college, and car loan. And even with those, we are encouraged to pay them off as soon as we can.

So, tying to that, we are adviced to prepare to be self-sufficient at all times - for example, having food storage and savings will help us if we ever lose our jobs, or get sick and have unexpected medical bills or if the car breaks down, etc. etc. It’s not just for hurricanes or tsunamis.

And all this ties together to charity and service because we can’t help others if we are not in a position to be able to help.

 

[rainman10]

Hi rainman10, yes, there is such a thing as doctrine in the LDS Church. Because, God’s truths are eternal.

But, just like when Jesus Christ chose to teach through parables to the masses then expounded the meaning of the parables to his apostles (see Matthew 13), we don’t know ALL the eternal truths as of yet. God may have given us a glimpse of truth then He might expand on it at a later time through revelation And because man is not perfect, we might see the truth and interpret it one way according to our understanding, then later when more truth is revealed we realize our interpretation was not completely accurate.

A good example that Catholics can relate to on this matter is the Mosaic Law versus the Higher Law. Just because Mosaic Law was done away with and replaced with a higher law does not mean that Mosaic law was wrong or non-doctrinal.

Take for example the 10 Commandments versus Jesus’ teaching of only 2 commandments. “Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as God loves you” is a larger truth than the “Thou shalt nots” of Mosaic law. So that, a person healing the sick on the Sabbath may seem to have broken the “Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day holy” so much so that it was a taboo to do so in the olden days, but when faced with the larger truth, it makes it clear that yes, you can heal the sick on the Sabbath. The doctrine never changed - the truth is eternal. The interpretation of the commandment changed when faced with higher understanding.

This is the same for what we call “new revelation” in the LDS Church.

Thank you for the explanation, pinay, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. That helps, some, but I still have other questions. Maybe I will start another thread for this.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi rainman10, yes, there is such a thing as doctrine in the LDS Church. Because, God’s truths are eternal.

But, just like when Jesus Christ chose to teach through parables to the masses then expounded the meaning of the parables to his apostles (see Matthew 13), we don’t know ALL the eternal truths as of yet. God may have given us a glimpse of truth then He might expand on it at a later time through revelation And because man is not perfect, we might see the truth and interpret it one way according to our understanding, then later when more truth is revealed we realize our interpretation was not completely accurate.

A good example that Catholics can relate to on this matter is the Mosaic Law versus the Higher Law. Just because Mosaic Law was done away with and replaced with a higher law does not mean that Mosaic law was wrong or non-doctrinal.

Take for example the 10 Commandments versus Jesus’ teaching of only 2 commandments. “Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as God loves you” is a larger truth than the “Thou shalt nots” of Mosaic law. So that, a person healing the sick on the Sabbath may seem to have broken the “Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day holy” so much so that it was a taboo to do so in the olden days, but when faced with the larger truth, it makes it clear that yes, you can heal the sick on the Sabbath. The doctrine never changed - the truth is eternal. The interpretation of the commandment changed when faced with higher understanding.

This is the same for what we call “new revelation” in the LDS Church.

How does this apply to allowing, then not allowing, polygamy? The same question would apply to blacks in the priesthood. These were 180 degree turns, not a higher understanding of revealed truths.

When Christ summed up the Ten Commandments with the two, he did not do away with any of them. He was demonstrating that if we love God with all our heart, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves we will be keeping the other commandments as well.

As far as Mosaic law is concerned, these were the laws of Moses, not of God, and Jesus demonstrated this with issues such as Moses allowing divorce, but Jesus prohibiting divorce, and an “eye for an eye”, as opposed to loving our enemies.

 

[pinay]

I once had an lds friend tell me that “the needy” they refer to as the recipients of the extra food and water, are only other lds members in good standing.
My friend and his family actually rented a storage unit to store all their extra “stuffs” in. I asked what would they do if a non lds needy person stormed the unit during a crisis. He told me they would probably be shot.
Now this friend I tell of was a bishop in the local lds stake center.

That’s funny. My father-in-law said the exact same thing! But I know he meant that he will shoot the guy storming his unit but he will gladly share it if the guy would just ask nicely. He’s a retired Navy.

But, the reality is - the bishop of a ward is responsible for ALL the people within his ward boundaries - LDS member or not. That’s why it is very common to hear about all the service work LDS people do during times of crisis. For example, when Hurricane Katrina struck, the LDS members got organized to serve faster than the Red Cross in certain areas. Almost half the men and some women in our ward loaded up several trucks with basic items and started driving to Mississippi the day after the hurricane hit from our bishop’s request. They just drove west on I-10 and stopped at every house they saw that got hit bad - clearing trees to make driveways and doorways passable, fixing leaking roofs, handing out canned goods, blankets, etc. They camped along the way until all their supplies were used up and they all went home. Just another day in the LDS life-style.

No, our bishop didn’t have stewardship in Mississippi but he felt we were needed so he sent us there. And no, it is not a proselyting effort. I doubt the people they served knew they were LDS even. We have hurricane preparedness activities here every year where we send out emergency packets door-to-door in conjunction with the Red Cross. The packets all say Red Cross on them and not a single line that indicates the people handing them out are LDS. It’s just something we all get ourselves involved in. We also have a cannery here - open to the public, LDS or not. You can bring your own stuff and can it for free.

There’s so many of these types of stuff all over the place. A lot of them are going on in conjunction with the Catholic church. The Catholic and LDS churches are very good at working together in service.

 

[pinay]

How does this apply to allowing, then not allowing, polygamy? The same question would apply to blacks in the priesthood. These were 180 degree turns, not a higher understanding of revealed truths.

When Christ summed up the Ten Commandments with the two, he did not do away with any of them. He was demonstrating that if we love God with all our heart, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves we will be keeping the other commandments as well.

As far as Mosaic law is concerned, these were the laws of Moses, not of God, and Jesus demonstrated this with issues such as Moses allowing divorce, but Jesus prohibiting divorce, and an “eye for an eye”, as opposed to loving our enemies.

Hi SteveVH, I don’t want to derail the thread so I’m going to just keep my response very short.

Polygamy - the difference is eternal marriage. There’s marriage 'Til Death Do Us Part - and there’s eternal marriage. Earthly marriage is ruled by earthly laws, eternal marriage is God’s. So that - when Jacob had several wives sealed by God and David was given several wives by God, then Jesus instructed to only have one wife - it did not make God a liar. And yes, when God gives eternal laws - it does not change. So that, when polygamy was ordained by God in the Old Testament and then stopped in the New Testament - it did not change. Earthly practice changed, Eternal Law didn’t. This is difficult for Catholics to grasp because Catholics do not believe in eternal families.

Blacks in the priesthood - same difference. When God instructed in the Old Testament that the priesthood is only to be given to the Levites then changed it later on to be given to the tribe of Joseph as well, He was not wrong the first time. God’s law is Eternal. Priesthood has always been through God’s choosing. If He ever decides to give the priesthood to women, it does not mean that the Church was sexist before. We see throughout church history that God may be perfect but He has to work through imperfect Man so that - just like what I mentioned before on Matthew 13 - He gives us instructions or allows us to govern ourselves according to our understanding at the time. You cannot separate a Prophet from his time… that’s why you can’t fault Moses for giving Mosaic Law according to what God revealed at the time and say, look! He allowed divorce! He wasn’t a true prophet after all!

 

[William_Pitts]

I’m surprised that no one has mention the practice among LDS of storing food, water and essentials. Everyone should have a “72 hour kit” easily accessible. However the long range goal is one years food, water, and essentials stored in a secure place.

I believe this somehow ties in with the story of Joseph becoming a ruler in Egypt. He had the Egyptians store grain in good years to offset the bad years to come. His brothers came to beg for grain and eventually stayed in Egypt.

The practice is actually a good one. Even in temporary disasters such as a loss of a job or illness at least the family will eat. The LDS emphasize self reliance and personal development in many areas.

 

[SonCatcher]

I once had an lds friend tell me that “the needy” they refer to as the recipients of the extra food and water, are only other lds members in good standing.
My friend and his family actually rented a storage unit to store all their extra “stuffs” in. I asked what would they do if a non lds needy person stormed the unit during a crisis. He told me they would probably be shot.
Now this friend I tell of was a bishop in the local lds stake center.

I’d be a little concerned about using a storage unit for this purpose. Under certain extreme circumstances, the unit may become inaccessible (although, it certainly is a good idea to have a backup if one’s primary, at-home supplies are destroyed). I think that supplies built up in multiple locations (that is, each family’s house) would be the best safeguard. The community’s widely-spread supplies become the “storage unit” in that case.

 

[SonCatcher]

SteveVH;7731085:

How does this apply to allowing, then not allowing, polygamy? The same question would apply to blacks in the priesthood. These were 180 degree turns, not a higher understanding of revealed truths.

…

Hi SteveVH, I don’t want to derail the thread so I’m going to just keep my response very short.

Polygamy - …

Blacks in the priesthood - …

Let’s keep this debate to a minimum here since it’s out of scope. Thank you, pinay, for saying so.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi SteveVH, I don’t want to derail the thread…

Point taken. My bad.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m surprised that no one has mention the practice among LDS of storing food, water and essentials. Everyone should have a “72 hour kit” easily accessible. However the long range goal is one years food, water, and essentials stored in a secure place.

William,

The practice was implied in my OP and discussed in the linked article. My own parents periodically remind me to have a 72-hour kit ready and other supplies on hand (there isn’t even currently a LDS member in the family - even extended).

So far, the only thing I do reliably is buy another bag of rice (50#/22kg) long before the previous one runs out.

I believe this somehow ties in with the story of Joseph becoming a ruler in Egypt. He had the Egyptians store grain in good years to offset the bad years to come. His brothers came to beg for grain and eventually stayed in Egypt.

The practice is actually a good one. Even in temporary disasters such as a loss of a job or illness at least the family will eat. The LDS emphasize self reliance and personal development in many areas.

Excellent! Joseph’s example is a very good one. He stockpiled food for years (probably had a few Egyptians bothered that they were rationed when every year they filled more and more storehouses ). When the famine came, he was then able to supply for all of Egypt, his own family and ALL the surrounding nations.