The Book of Mormons and the Bible

[zerinus]

The church states that EVERY family have a one-year supply of food and water for every family member. The “reason” given was so that "when the end comes…which is the second coming of Christ.

That is utter nonsense and absolute garbage. That is not, and never has been, the Church’s reasons for recommending the food storage program to its members. You are talking trash as usual.

zerinus

 

[wussup]

Originally Posted by Montalban 
Also, you raised the idea of ‘love thy neighbour’; I saw many years ago a show that said the LDS stockpiles food and other goods for charity - but for use only within the LDS community. Is this true?

NO, I had only been in the church a few months when the Bishopric asked all members to donate as much as they could for a famine in Ethiopia. Not only were there essentially no members in Ethiopia who received the tons and tons of food the Church bought, you will never guess who we gave the food to…oh, this is so good, the irony here is rich. The only organization the Church trusted to give all the food to whomever needed it was the Catholic Relief Organization. Isn’t that rich?! Ricardo? Are you there? Let me guess, you will continue to tell people the above as truth, or just as bad, when you here someone say the above, you will not correct them.
Whatever.

Back to the discussion regarding the B of M not having any internal proofs, and the LDS respond only to {must say the following with heavy sarcasm} “faith”. There is currently a rather long discussion about the trinity theory going on another thread. The bottom line that everyone is saying (except for one fella’) is the trinity cannot be understood. It is a ‘mystery’. The Catholic Church even has numbered ‘mysteries’. Guess what? I am ok with mysteries. God’s eternal truth is so, well eternal, it is impossible for mankind to comprehend even the smallest portion of it. There are a number of issues we disagree on (obviously), the main one being how we perceive our relationship with Our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ. Both of us believe Our Father in Heaven is the Eternal Father, that He sacrificed his Only Begotten Son so that we all might have eternal life, and that the Holy Ghost will bear witness of it. You feel their relationship is a Trinity, incomprehensible, indefinable, etc. Yet we (the LDS) believe your belief in Jesus is a saving one. We believe a more literal rendering, that rejects the one Mystery of the trinity, believing the Bible literally, that God is our Father in Heaven, that he sacrifice his Only Begotten Son (whom we believe to be more literal, the Conception is our Mystery (any beliefs regarding this in our Church are Theories only. There are lots of them out there, all are theories, none are Gospel), we believe Jesus to be our Brother, the and as Paul says, we are to become Joint Heirs with Christ in all he received of the Father, and we believe the Holy Ghost bears witness of the Gospel. Yes, they are different ideas. So, what we have is you have faith, with no proof whatsoever, of the Trinity. Your belief in this unproveable doctrine is so strong, that those who do not have faith in this mysterious contradiction/paradox are doomed to hell forever. We do not believe you have to have a testimony of the B of M to be saved. If you wish to believe in the Trinity in the Church, you can still be saved. Having imperfect knowledge of the Christ and His Father does not make one ineligible for salvation. So, the question is, do you not feel it hypocritical to hold such a hard belief in the mysteries of the Catholic Church, yet condemn us because there are beliefs in the Church that are just as hard (Jesus Ben Joseph dying on the cross and then being commanding his body to life again forever being a biggie).

 

[wussup]

Majick-
First- No implication, claiming the LDS are poor apolegeticists, that the original LDS position was contemptuous of formal religious education, is dishonest. I will admit there was a lot skepticism, and still is, towards religious scholars within the Church (pardon the split infinitive, I am rushing this). However, this is not just an LDS claim. All you have to do is listen to EWTN network for more than an hour and you will here the experts decry the sorry, liberal state of much of current Catholic scholarship (and Protestants are even worse).
Second, these conversations were had many years ago by specialists in various fields. I can try to get in touch with them to get their permission, but before I do that, can you mention one current PhD in Philosophy who specializes in metaphysics or protestant theology? What is a big name to one may not be ‘big’ to another. Besides, ad authoritatum arguments are just as invalid as ad hominem arguments.
As for the quote in 3 Nephi…no, I do not.
Re the chiasmus thread, I was unaware that chiasmus was a ‘latin thing’ and was pretty common in english. I was aware of Shakespeare’s use of Chiasmus, but would not consider it ‘common’ by any means. Why do you think Chiasmus is a ‘latin thing’?

 

[wussup]

Another blurb on Faith. As an Elder, I fell into the trap of learning the scriptures. Do not get me wrong, scripture study is vital, but it is not of itself spiritual. One can read all one wants to of the Bible, become quite expert in debate, apologetics, etc., ad nauseum, but in the end, it does NOTHING for salvation. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring people to Christ. To recognize him as our Lord and Savior, to beseech and beg the sinner to repent and believe in His Most Holy Sacrifice. It is my opinion, the Gospel according to Wussup, that being Catholic is fine with God if you follow the dictates of your conscience, seek after His Eternal Mystery, and supplicate yourself before Him. It is not ok by God to be a Pharisee or Sadducee, a sign seeker. If you want a proof of the Book of Mormon, I pray you never get it. Christ had VERY unfavourable things to say about sign seekers. I am not particularly interested in proofs of the Book of Mormon. I have a witness thereof of the Holy Ghost. I believe the Book of Mormon when it preaches that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, that he paid the penalty for our sins, and that it is through him that I may be saved from my sins. I did not have faith in the Holy Bible because of the exact debate going on here. However, I am only human. I find a perverse interest in watching the unbelievable mangling of facts that goes on here. Incidently, if one does not want to be called apostate, my forgiveness please, but the mere existence in this world of 10s of thousands of other denominations are witness to the same belief. It must be tough to have such a thin testimony that the belief of the Apostacy of the Christian Church could bring out such hate.
Gotta go. Have no fear, I will be back, but it may be a few days (I will be at home and have a honeydew list a mile long).

 

[zerinus]

First of all I don’t think Mormons agree with you that Peter was a Pope.

That is about right. If Peter was alive today, as the senior apostle he would have been eligible for the Presidency of the Church. But that is not the same calling as the Pope! The Pope and the President of the LDS Church function completely differently.

Secondly, as I explained earlier: the Great Apostasy began during the lifetime of the Apostles, and it continued to spread long after the deaths of the Apostles. A major factor in the spread of the Great Apostasy was the Neronian and other persecutions, which killed off the holders of Priesthood authority faster than it could be conferred. But not all who lacked the proper Priesthood authority were necessarily apostates: some were simply Christians who had not yet received Priesthood authority before those who could confer it were killed.

Linus may have had valid Priesthood authority, OR he may have been among those who were in apostasy, OR he may have been sincerely obedient to what he know of the Gospel but nonetheless deprived of Priesthood authority; but in whatever case he was in the generation of those who saw priesthood authority taken away from the church. Those who had it were killed off before they could pass it on; those who had apostatised lost their authority; and some who were not explicitly apostate were left to struggle to maintain Christian faith without Priesthood authority or the direct inward guidance of the Holy Ghost. Remember that Mormons not only baptise by the authority of their Priesthood, they also confer the gift of the Holy Ghost through a confirmation ceremony which likewise requires the Priesthood.

That is generally right also. The only clarification I would add is that it is not necessary that all the priesthood holders of the church to have died of the church to have become apostate. Once the leadership (the Apostles) were removed form the scene, the keys of the priesthood became dysfunctional, and could no longer be exercised within the organizational structure of the church by the few who may have still held it. I have already discussed that subject in this post quite a while ago:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1601734&postcount=119

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

I’m not suggesting that Mormonism is an orthodox Christian faith–it is NOT–but I think you are again laying charges to the account of the LDS Church which are unfair and overstated.

That’s a fair criticism of me, and I accept it. However, what I know about Mormon teaching on tithing is taken from my fiance’s behavior for the past couple of years. Even though she had pretty much disconnected from Mormonism from a functional point of view, she never stopped tithing. She’d go to Mormon church maybe once every 3 months, and then only for sacrament meeting. At one point, she’d become quite out of date with her tithing due to financial demands on her family. Even so, she went to the bishop (I know this because I drove here there) and made arrangements to catch up on the arrears, and made good on them. When I asked about this, she responded that she always got a blessing from the tithing, and was afraid NOT to tithe, even though her faith practice, her piety, was completely out of whack with Mormon teaching. The lesson here is obvious. At least, it is to me. It is that some Mormons, and I personally believe that this is MOST Mormons, believe in tithing as a ritual, or legalistic function, and that it leads to blessings even apart from an ordered pious relationship with God. That is not orthodox according to any Protestant denomination I’ve ever heard of.

 

[flameburns623]

A very good point because in America Jesus’ message died for quite some time.

Actually, in America the Gospel remained intact for longer than it did in the Old World: well into the late 200’s AD.

Speaking of time, what’s the time-line with Mormon events…

In copies of the Book of Mormon you will find marginal notes indicating the approximate year that events are occurring. Look in the lower left-hand corner of the pages. (King James Bibles once had similar footnotes, based upon Bishop James Usher’s chronology. The practice has long since been discontinued in most Bibles).

When did the Jews get to America?

600 BC.

When did Jesus go to America? Did he have to die there too?

33/34 AD. No He did not die there; His visit was a post-Resurrection visit. It did follow a series of natural catastrophes which destroyed much of Nephite culture.

 

[Allweather]

Incidently, if one does not want to be called apostate, my forgiveness please, but the mere existence in this world of 10s of thousands of other denominations are witness to the same belief. It must be tough to have such a thin testimony that the belief of the Apostacy of the Christian Church could bring out such hate.

From a simple historical point of view, that is, without reference to any theological arguments between the various religions, or sects among them, there is only one Church with a claim to fame, and that is the Catholic Church. By historical measurements alone, it predates everything else by many, many centuries, and in fact can be traced back to the Apostles. There is an unbroken line of Bishops and Popes. There is ample written record, not only from the Apostles, but also from the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, as well as theologians throughout the history of the Church who have written, and whose documents we still have today.

It is true that the multiplicity of denominations speaks of apostasy, but NOT the apostasy of the Catholic Church, but, rather, of the apostasy of some of those who broke away from its authority. This MUST include the Mormons, who are a branch of Protestantism, which itself is a breakaway group of sects, most of which are in serious heresy. According to history, Mormonism was established in 1830 (as it April 6th of that year? I can’t remember exactly). That is really, really late in the game. Also, Mormonism has its own schisms and apostasies within itself, in the form of Mormon sects which disagree with each other as to authority. This is a typical sign of Protestantism: the ongoing splintering and breaking up of the religions.

The only way Mormons can claim exemption from the apostasy, is by claiming that the Catholic Church is apostate, and that Mormonism is a restoration of true Christianity. Yet, history argues persuasively against that. Because history argues so strongly against The Great Apostasy that Mormons must have in order to be legitimate, if only in their own eyes, Mormons must generate burning bosoms and witnesses of holy ghosts in order to sustain the illusion.

It is Catholicism that has maintained the unity of Christianity since the Apostolic times. It is the breakaway sects and cults, among them Mormonism, which has become apostate.

Gotta go. Have no fear, I will be back, but it may be a few days (I will be at home and have a honeydew list a mile long).

Git 'er done…

 

[majick275]

Majick-
First- No implication, claiming the LDS are poor apolegeticists, that the original LDS position was contemptuous of formal religious education, is dishonest. I will admit there was a lot skepticism, and still is, towards religious scholars within the Church (pardon the split infinitive, I am rushing this). However, this is not just an LDS claim. All you have to do is listen to EWTN network for more than an hour and you will here the experts decry the sorry, liberal state of much of current Catholic scholarship (and Protestants are even worse).

okay this appears contradictory to me. I still think it correct to say that apologetics is not the forte of the LDS. That in and of itself doesn’t necessarily weaken their position. the lds position has always been testimony based rather than analytical. i don’ see an apples to apples comparison in your example either. LDS don’t have seminaries per se to train their clergy. they have in the past been explicitly contemptuous of the concept. The pre 1990 temple endowment epitomized this but it has always been the case. the whole first vision is based on this. “all their creeds an abomination”, “all their professors corrupt”. Joseph Smith is depicted as an uneducated rustic by the LDS and that is frequently given as proof of the restoration. So I see that the LDS aren’t into apologetics. the don’t emphasize it or teach it much. I don’t consider this derogatory either, the mormon position is that it requires no apologetics. only recently have some “liberal” mormons (like the signature press folks) felt the need to venture into that area. FAIR and FARMS just shows that LDS leadership is okay with that.

Second, these conversations were had many years ago by specialists in various fields. I can try to get in touch with them to get their permission, but before I do that, can you mention one current PhD in Philosophy who specializes in metaphysics or protestant theology? What is a big name to one may not be ‘big’ to another. Besides, ad authoritatum arguments are just as invalid as ad hominem arguments.

uuhhhh you were the one who brought this up in the first place. If you wish to claim “expert witness” then you must establish their credentials. I think unsupported allegations give me just cause to be skeptical.

As for the quote in 3 Nephi…no, I do not.

yet this scripture appears to support praying directly to Jesus. The LDS church today does not do this and in fact teaches against it. That looks contradictory to me.

Re the chiasmus thread, I was unaware that chiasmus was a ‘latin thing’ and was pretty common in English. I was aware of Shakespeare’s use of Chiasmus, but would not consider it ‘common’ by any means. Why do you think Chiasmus is a ‘latin thing’?

because it found it’s “heyday” amongst the latin writers. That is what appeared to influence the English poets. The LDS who want to use chiasmus as “proof” of the BoM’s validity paint as something somewhat unique to early hebrew writers and thus not only unavailable to Joseph Smith but evidence of a “restored” document of early hebrew origin.

 

[flameburns623]

Actually, in America the Gospel remained intact for longer than it did in the Old World: well into the late 200’s AD.

In copies of the Book of Mormon you will find marginal notes indicating the approximate year that events are occurring. Look in the lower left-hand corner of the pages. (King James Bibles once had similar footnotes, based upon Bishop James Usher’s chronology. The practice has long since been discontinued in most Bibles).

600 BC.

33/34 AD. No He did not die there; His visit was a post-Resurrection visit. It did follow a series of natural catastrophes which destroyed much of Nephite culture.

One of the problems with preventing editing of posts is that one cannot re-read one’s own posts and rectify errors. I find in re-reading my own post that I did not qualify my comments, above, in quite the way I should have. The gospel “allegedly” survived in the Americas longer than in the Old World: after all, as our LDS friends are now arguing, the “Great Apostasy” which ultimately necessitated the anointing of Joseph Smith was (according to most Mormons) well under way in the first century AD. In the Book of Mormon, the apostasy seems to have been fended off until well after 200 AD.

Likewise, Jesus only “purportedly” visited the Americas, and only if one takes for granted the account of the Book of Mormon. In point of fact, while there may be some rare cases where Christ has revealed Himself to people otherwise inaccessible to Christian missionaries, I personally do NOT believe that the Book of Mormon records such an event.

 

[mjf001]

First of all I don’t think Mormons agree with you that Peter was a Pope.

Whether Mormons believe it or not is irrelevant. History is on the side of Catholics on this one.

Michael

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige-
Our position on the Bible is it is the Word of God. Sure, some parts have been translated incorrectly (as I stated before, Catholics also believe this. Evidence of this is they keep bringing out new translations based on more and more current scholarship). We believe the King James Version is more than sufficient to learn of the Gospel. Regarding the question of who compiled the Bible. We believe the ‘Bible’ was first, the Old Testament was handed down through the ages, with the main version we have now a result of the Septuagint. The New Testament is more complex. The earliest document is know as a portion of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on one side and 18:37-38 on the other sidee) from AD 125. It is called ‘P52’. There are many fragments used by translaters date up to AD 300. In addition to these fragements are three most famous Codi; the AD 300 Codex Vaticanus, the AD 350 Codex Sanaiticus, and the AD AD 450 Codex Alexendrinus. From these various codi, scholars translate the New Testiment. I get two significant facts from this: 1) None of the manuscripts agree, and 2) None disagree significantly enough to alter the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It may interest you to here what a big name says regarding textual criticism, Dr. Metzger (of Princeton) says, "The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings. In other instances, however, the critic can arrive at a decision based on more or less compelling reasons for preferring one reading and rejecting another. (From The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, available on line at “Questia”. Any way, that is how we think we got the Bible. Is that specific enough?

Sorry for the delay, but I was away from my computer for a couple of days. Thanks for addressing my questions on the Bible and the Aposacy, but I am afraid that you missed my real point of interest. What interests me is that the timing seems completely impossible. If the Church apostacised and lost the priestly authority very soon after the Apostles, then who gathered the Scriptures and approved them? They were hotly contested during the entire post-apostolic period, and it was not until a century or more later that the current 27, the number the LDS accepts, was agreed upon. But, that is entirely the product of apostates. Why do you use that at all?

Imagine if the Catholic Church used the Book of Mormon as a scripture, even if we insisted it was imperfectly translated. Would that not seem ridiculous? How could we insist that Joseph Smith was an apostate and heretic and yet use his book as a scripture? It would just be impossible. How does the LDS Church explain the seemingly impossible time conflict of using a Bible which, in its current form, dates to the Apostate period?

Many thanks,

Patrick

 

[wussup]

Patrick-
You are conflagrating several issues. Priesthood Authority is the authority to perform certain ordinances of the Gospel (such as baptism, sacrement/communion, ordaining priests, etc…). Furthermore, the Apostacy came about as a result of a loss of authoritative priests. However, this does not mean these men did not have the best intentions, and that God did not use them to compile the Bible as we have it. It also doesn’t mean they didn’t take plain and precious parts out of it (per the former posting regarding missing scripture) or add parts to it (such as Revelation 22:18).
Finally, your analogy is not valid. Since Joseph Smith is de facto the writer of the current B of M (from our perspective, translated from ancient source), he would be considered a First Hand Witness of the Account, usually considered to be necessary to be authoritative and canon. A more accurate analogy would be if the Catholic Church were to accept the Book of Mormon (not a bad thought really) they would recognize Joseph Smith as a Prophet, but would perhaps not recognize the organization of the B of M into chapter and verse by subsequent people.

Majick-
I would concede that most of what you say is true. The Church per se is not in the business of sophistry. The base arguement of the Church is that sophistry is what got us in this position (the apostacy) in the first place. Nevertheless, to say the LDS have not gone out of their way to learn whereof they speak, that is just silly. As a missionary, it takes no time for a person to recognize ignorance. If you wish to think the LDS are poor apologetists, fine with me.
I would have difficulty finding the sources, but I have been taught that as the Second Coming of Christ approaches, more and more proofs of the Book of Mormon would come out, that other Scriptures from other of the Lost Tribes of Israel would arise, and that from strictly defined logic the evidence would be irrefutable, and, the teaching continues, the Gospel would still be rejected.
So, regarding the chiasmus. Yes, your understanding of chiasmus is correct. And yes, it was known of the authors you mentioned. However, LDS do not paint this as something ‘unique’ amoungst Hebrew writers but do point out that Chiasmus was not discovered by scholars in the Bible until the mid 18th century, and then the scholarship into Biblical Chiasmus was a paper written in latin. One can make ad hominem attacks on Jeff Lindsay’s website, but he is only passing on the apologetics of others. Here is a web-site for those who want to get caught up, jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml. In summary, it was not common knowledge in the 1820s of the presence of large volumes of chiasmus in the scripture, yet, as John Welch, addresses, it is possible for Joseph Smith to have been aware of chiasmus. Given the vast amount of the Book of Mormon written in this form, it is in my opinion, inconceivable that if Joseph Smith put in the effort to write these complex forms, that he would then keep silent on this. No one was aware of these forms in the B of M until the 1960s. Does this prove the B of M true? No. Nothing can, except a testimony of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, for those seeking a reason to believe, this does give an inquiring mind pause for thought.

 

[Kristine1957]

That is utter nonsense and absolute garbage. That is not, and never has been, the Church’s reasons for recommending the food storage program to its members. You are talking trash as usual.

zerinus

Well zerinus, I do know exactly what I’m talking about to be honest its a wonderful program…(Except working in the canneries…thats a hard job…) however, to be fair most church leaders of today do not talk about this program as they did in 1930 to 1980. Several church leaders have talked about this issue.Here is just one example: President Benson spoke in conference…
The Lord has warned us and forwarned us against a day of great tribulation…
The revelation to produce and store food may be as essential as to our temporal welfare today as boarding the ark…
Prepare Now…
Men prepare your families as the time is near…

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Patrick-
You are conflagrating several issues. Priesthood Authority is the authority to perform certain ordinances of the Gospel (such as baptism, sacrement/communion, ordaining priests, etc…). Furthermore, the Apostacy came about as a result of a loss of authoritative priests. However, this does not mean these men did not have the best intentions, and that God did not use them to compile the Bible as we have it.

"The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters. Alas! alas! what doctrine, what principle, or what scheme, in all, what prayers, what devotion, or what faith, since the fathers have fallen asleep,' has opened the heavens; has brought men into the presence of God; and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to an innumerable company of angels? The answer is, not any: **There is none in all christendom that doeth good; no, not one.’**

• Apostle John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811

The bold text was my doing, and I have been under the impression that it was a traditional stance within the Latter Day Saints community. If it is so, how could the Bible be established by those who are incapable of good?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Actually, there isn’t that much difference between characterizing me as Morg or as Terminator. According to the Wikipedia:

Morg is a fictional supervillain published by Marvel Comics universe, appearing as a herald of Galactus. Created by Ron Lim and Ron Marz, he first appeared in Silver Surfer vol. 3, #70 (August 1992).

**Origin **Morg served as a herald of Galactus after Galactus’ previous herald, Nova, quit. After losing several heralds to attacks of conscience, Galactus searched for the most brutal, remorseless person he could find, and he found Morg; an executioner who had betrayed his own species by becoming the executioner for the species that had defeated them. Morg gladly accepted the task of being Galactus’ herald. Much like former herald Terrax, Morg also wielded a large axe.
I hardly see a cause for your complaint.

zerinus

Isn’t this a quotation from the BoM? Nephi or Alma?

Zerinus, to be the Terminator you would have to be Catholic like the actor in the photograph.

Oh, am I on your list of people to be ‘terminated?’

Pax Christi

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Patrick-

You are conflagrating several issues.

 

[zerinus]

Well zerinus, I do know exactly what I’m talking about to be honest its a wonderful program…(Except working in the canneries…thats a hard job…) however, to be fair most church leaders of today do not talk about this program as they did in 1930 to 1980. Several church leaders have talked about this issue.Here is just one example: President Benson spoke in conference…
The Lord has warned us and forwarned us against a day of great tribulation…
The revelation to produce and store food may be as essential as to our temporal welfare today as boarding the ark…
Prepare Now…
Men prepare your families as the time is near…

The food storage program of the Church is part of the general Welfare Program (originally called the Security Plan) of the Church which was devised in the 1930s, in response to the Great Depression of the late 20s and early 30s in the US. That was the first time that anything like that had happened in the US. Many businesses failed, large numbers of people became unemployed, and many previously successful business people became bankrupt. Many of them committed suicide, because they could not face the loss of their fortune and enormous debts they had to repay. That was when for the first time the “dole” was introduced in the US. Before that there was no dole. You either worked for your living, or begged, or died! But with such large number of people being unemployed, the government felt they had to do something about it, so they introduced the dole to hep them survive until they could fend for themselves. Naturally this condition also affected many Church members, and this was alarming to the leadership of the Church. They wanted to create a situation where Church member would become more independent and self-reliant, and less vulnerable to such economic conditions. Their aim and objective was expressed in this statement in the October 1936 general conference of the Church:

Our primary purpose was to set up, insofar as possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of the dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift, and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as a ruling principle in the lives of our Church membership. (Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3)

The program contained several basic elements. The first one was to “live righteously”. The second one was general provident living (i.e. avoiding debt, living within you means, saving for a rainy day, becoming gainfully employed and acquiring necessary skills). The third one, as far as I can recall, was keeping a year’s supply food, fuel, water, and clothing in case of an emergency. It had nothing to do with the Second Coming. It is true that natural disasters and emergencies (and man made ones) have been increasing during the past few decades, even in the US; and many Church members have found their food storage to have been particularly useful to them in such emergencies (including personal emergencies such as sudden loss of employment or unexpected illness). In fact, it has been prophesied that such events would happen, and they are increasing. We are living in a time of “tribulation”. And food storage has proved a life saver to many an LDS in such situations. But it had nothing to do with the Second Coming.

zerinus

 

[cothrige]

Patrick-
You are conflagrating several issues. Priesthood Authority is the authority to perform certain ordinances of the Gospel (such as baptism, sacrement/communion, ordaining priests, etc…). Furthermore, the Apostacy came about as a result of a loss of authoritative priests. However, this does not mean these men did not have the best intentions, and that God did not use them to compile the Bible as we have it. It also doesn’t mean they didn’t take plain and precious parts out of it (per the former posting regarding missing scripture) or add parts to it (such as Revelation 22:18).

Are you really comfortable with this approach? It seems to imply either that the apostasy was no big deal and had no impact on the faith, which is certainly strange, or that the Church is a completely unnecessary byproduct. I certainly believe that God will make use of the non-believer or even an apostate, but this seems to put things in the wrong order. I, as did St. Augustine, only believe the Gospels because the authority of the Catholic Church moved me. We were promised a Church, and that Church delivered a scripture for our help. The second depends on the first, and if the Church were not then the Bible could never be. I am actually surprised that the LDS would be so comfortable with a book produced by bodies with no authority and no direct covenant with God.

Patrick

 

[Kristine1957]

The food storage program of the Church is part of the general Welfare Program (originally called the Security Plan) of the Church which was devised in the 1930s, in response to the Great Depression of the late 20s and early 30s in the US. That was the first time that anything like that had happened in the US. Many businesses failed, large numbers of people became unemployed, and many previously successful business people became bankrupt. Many of them committed suicide, because they could not face the loss of their fortune and enormous debts they had to repay. That was when for the first time the “dole” was introduced in the US. Before that there was no dole. You either worked for your living, or begged, or died! But with such large number of people being unemployed, the government felt they had to do something about it, so they introduced the dole to hep them survive until they could fend for themselves. Naturally this condition also affected many Church members, and this was alarming to the leadership of the Church. They wanted to create a situation where Church member would become more independent and self-reliant, and less vulnerable to such economic conditions. Their aim and objective was expressed in this statement in the October 1936 general conference of the Church:

Our primary purpose was to set up, insofar as possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of the dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift, and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as a ruling principle in the lives of our Church membership. (Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3)

The program contained several basic elements. The first one was to “live righteously”. The second one was general provident living (i.e. avoiding debt, living within you means, saving for a rainy day, becoming gainfully employed and acquiring necessary skills). The third one, as far as I can recall, was keeping a year’s supply food, fuel, water, and clothing in case of an emergency. It had nothing to do with the Second Coming. It is true that natural disasters and emergencies (and man made ones) have been increasing during the past few decades, even in the US; and many Church members have found their food storage to have been particularly useful to them in such emergencies (including personal emergencies such as sudden loss of employment or unexpected illness). In fact, it has been prophesied that such events would happen, and they are increasing. We are living in a time of “tribulation”. And food storage has proved a life saver to many an LDS in such situations. But it had nothing to do with the Second Coming.

zerinus

I agree with you for the most part… However The LDS
Prophets have been warning their members for generations of the coming tribulations.
Most have said that in the latter days these things would happen and it was commanded that all church members to have years supply of food and why.
This is the way I understood it…
" There will be many signs before the coming of Christ which are wars, rumours of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, and all manner of natural and social disasters, and as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we are now living in the “latter-days” before his Second Coming. We are now on the threshold of a time that will not only be unrivaled in glory, but also in hardship.

Take care may God bring you peace in your life…