What Is The Purpose Of Food Storage?

[Erin15]

First of all I'm not entirely convinced it's the Lord's will that we have a year supply of food storage.  While the Federal government has its share of problems, I think your comment that the Feds are terrible at everything it tries is a wee bit extreme.   I've noticed that for the polemists whether you hate or respect the Federal government simply depends on whether or not your guy is in the White House.

If you don't have a testimony of food storage, then it is your duty and obligation to go get one.  Try it, live it, and THEN you will know if it is from the Lord or not.  It is not the duty of others to convince you, it is YOUR duty to live it and find out for yourself.

 

And, my comments about the Feds were generous.  They are actually much worse than terrible.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Erin15

[thesometimesaint]

First of all I'm not entirely convinced it's the Lord's will that we have a year supply of food storage.  While the Federal government has its share of problems, I think your comment that the Feds are terrible at everything it tries is a wee bit extreme.   I've noticed that for the polemists whether you hate or respect the Federal government simply depends on whether or not your guy is in the White House.

 

The principle of food storage predates the US by a few thousands of years. Just plain old human experience teaches us that whatever our good intentions are as a country. We often fail to prepare for what will come to pass. We will get disasters, we will all get sick at sometime in our lives, we will all die(hopefull more later than sooner).

 

Simple basics for survival, like food water, a spare change of clothes, and basic medicines, are at this time relatively easy to come by.

It is too easy to be lulled into a false sense of security that we will always have grocery stores brimming with food, and/or that government will always be there when we need it. We as a country have gotten out of the habit of raising a garden, having enough food on hand to weather even short periods of unemployment, sickness, or heaven forbid widespread disease.

 

However nice they are we don't need a gold pressed latinum spoon in our mouths just to eat.

Edited October 29, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Kenngo1969]

Omni,

 

You implied that your father-in-law hasn't been blessed as a result of his decision/attempts to apply the counsel of the Brethren with respect to preparedness.  But if he has gone into debt or otherwise suffered financially as a result of attempts to apply that counsel, then, in fact, he hasn't applied the counsel correctly.  ("All things must be done in wisdom and order.")  So perhaps he's a poor example to invite the rest of us to consider when it comes to weighing the benefits and possible drawbacks of obeying the counsel 

Edited October 29, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I din't say that. There is plenty of blame to go around. The primary responsiblity for the construction, maintenance, and repair of the levy system around N.O. was and is with the Army Corp of Engineers. The FEMA lack of response was due to the malfeasance, and deliberate incompetence of "Heck of a job Brownie" and his boss.

You can say what you want about the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina, but the reality of the matter is, it didn't do much better responding to Hurricane Sandy.  In either case, I don't think the shortcomings of the response were due to malfeasance and deliberate incompetence as much as they were due to bureaucratic inertia, possible inter-agency and inter-branch infighting (or at least, lack of coordination), poor planning, and poorly-defined roles. 

[omni]

You could be right, but what's the higher law; staying out of debt or having a food storage? For some people the ominous threats of natural disasters and the overall chaos preceding the Second Coming are a much bigger motivating factor than staying out of debt.

[Tacenda]

If you don't have a testimony of food storage, then it is your duty and obligation to go get one. Try it, live it, and THEN you will know if it is from the Lord or not. It is not the duty of others to convince you, it is YOUR duty to live it and find out for yourself.

And, my comments about the Feds were generous. They are actually much worse than terrible.

As much as the government has disappointed me, I wouldn't want one with dictatorship. I pray that never happens, but imagine if we did, we'd better take the opportunity now to stock up while there's food out there. Some say that our government might not last much longer. This might be a big reason for a plan.

[thesometimesaint]

You can say what you want about the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina, but the reality of the matter is, it didn't do much better responding to Hurricane Sandy.  In either case, I don't think the shortcomings of the response were due to malfeasance and deliberate incompetence as much as they were due to bureaucratic inertia, possible inter-agency and inter-branch infighting (or at least, lack of coordination), poor planning, and poorly-defined roles. 

 

The causes of the distruction by hurricane Sandy were far different than the causes of distruction of hurricane Katrina. In low lying areas Sea Walls, levies, etc., while not eliminating all distruction, have a long and fabled history in places like Holland. Not so much here in the US where we argue, in Congress, over whether to aid the victims or not.

[thesometimesaint]

You could be right, but what's the higher law; staying out of debt or having a food storage? For some people the ominous threats of natural disasters and the overall chaos preceding the Second Coming are a much bigger motivating factor than staying out of debt.

 

It isn't an either or situation. As been expressed before by me and others, do both. Be wise in your purchases; know your own needs, and abilities; act accordingly. Sure there will be chaos, but there will still be eating, and drinking, and marriying, and making merry even in those times. Your FIL overspent. You can either learn not to make the same mistakes he made in applying the principle, or you can reject the principle. You live with the outcome either way.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You could be right, but what's the higher law; staying out of debt or having a food storage?

 

From the Church:

 

We ask that you be wise as you store food and water and build your savings. Do not go to extremes; it is not prudent, for example, to go into debt to establish your food storage all at once. With careful planning, you can, over time, establish a home storage supply and a financial reserve.

 

And advice on water:

 

Store water in sturdy, leak-proof, breakage-resistant containers. Consider using plastic bottles commonly used for juices and soda.

And the stated purpose:

 

Our Heavenly Father ... has lovingly commanded us to ‘prepare every needful thing’ so that, should adversity come, we may care for ourselves and our neighbors and support bishops as they care for others. We encourage members worldwide to prepare for adversity in life by having a basic supply of food and water and some money in savings.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Sleeper Cell]

 

The malfeasance of certain federal elected/appointed public officials before, during, and after the Katrina disaster should be a testament of what not to do to the good people of New Orleans.

 

 

This sort of  political blame game was a major causes of a lot of the problems. Many of the political failures were on the state and local level.  In fact, almost every bureaucratic SNAFU that could occur, did occur -- on all levels.

 

Also, many of the good people of New Orleans were largely responsible for their own plight because they refused  to heed the evacuation warnings.

 

The truth of the matter is that, at the time, "virtually no disaster preparedness agency -- including those in Southern California -- [had] seriously contemplated a disaster of this magnitude, let alone had a realistic plan (or resources) to respond.”

 

 These are not just my opinions.  They are conclusions of the group of  Southern California disaster managers who conducted their own evaluation based on their on-site interviews with local disaster response people as well as on their own observations.  Their report was presented at a special  Los Angeles Operational Area conference held on 4 Dec 2006 (“Katrina: 14 Months Later“) which I attended. (I am an extremely low level disaster volunteer whose primary expertise is the ability to sneak into meetings far above my pay grade)..  

 

Although nobody at the conference was asked to keep the information confidential, the report was based, in part, on the candid, self-criticisms of good people who did their best under very difficult circumstances and were far more concerned with helping to prevent future mistakes than with looking good to their visiting colleagues. I heavily redacted the following excerpts from my notes to prevent any one individual or local agency from being identified. 

 

 

KATRINA: 14 MONTHS LATER  -- Notes from the 4 Dec 2006 Conference  

 

Recently, several S. California area emergency managers spent 7 days in Louisiana and Mississippi to “see for themselves” the impact of Katrina and evaluate the effectiveness of the emergency response.  By waiting 14 months after Katrina, they (and their host agencies) felt that they could more objectively evaluate what worked and what didn’t.  Several cities and parishes (counties) were individually analyzed from the standpoint of what worked, what didn’t and what we in Southern California can learn.

 

General:

 

1.  Other than the water, the damage was similar to that which would occur in S. California from a catastrophic earthquake. 

 

2. Virtually no disaster preparedness agency -- including those in Southern California --  has seriously contemplated a disaster of this magnitude, let alone has a realistic plan (or resources) to respond.    

 

3. Staff and elected city officials must learn their roles before a disaster.  This specifically includes the financial staff. 

 

4.  By law, FEMA is  “compliance oriented,” rather than “ mission  oriented.”  In order to get help from FEMA, a city must be familiar with and follow FEMA rules. 

 

5.  Local government needs to learn just what FEMA is and is not responsible for.

 

6. They [the Southern California emergency managers] were stunned  at the lack of  progress in recovery over the last 14 months.

                 .   

 

A few specifics from two of the individual Louisiana parishes    [parish names redacted]:   

 

Parish A 

 

The local authorities (and people) had intense anger and frustration from their dealings with FEMA workers.  This was reciprocated by FEMA workers who complained that local authorities were uncooperative and “just didn’t get it.”  (e g., that they had to follow FEMA rules if they wanted FEMA reimbursement.)  

 

“Almost every bureaucratic SNAFU that could occur did occur -- on all levels.”

 

Communications suffered greatly. No cell phones, no landlines, no radio, nothing. For a week, the only way to get a message through was by runner.  

 

Parish B 

 

Every building in the Parish suffered damage.  Even experienced disaster response supervisors were shocked by the extent of the damage. Every school, hospital, government building, etc., was extensively damaged. Local government ceased to exist.   

 

Six (6) weeks elapsed before the first organized “mutual aid” arrived in the Parish.  This was due to the fact that all of the available resources got “sucked into the City of New Orleans.”  The outlaying areas got virtually nothing.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Sleeper Cell

[Sleeper Cell]

You can say what you want about the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina, but ... I don't think the shortcomings of the response were due to malfeasance and deliberate incompetence as much as they were due to bureaucratic inertia, possible inter-agency and inter-branch infighting (or at least, lack of coordination), poor planning, and poorly-defined roles. 

 

As indicated in my previous post, those in charge of disaster mamagement in Southern California would agree with you.

[Kenngo1969]

As indicated in my previous post, those in charge of disaster mamagement in Southern California would agree with you.

Shhhh!  Don't tell thesometimesaint!

[Alan]

OK.  You're right; that is an interesting take.  I always understood the "take no thought" instruction to apply to a certain subset of the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ (those who've been called full-time or almost full-time to the ministry) rather than to the Church as a whole.  So ...  how do you reconcile the concurrence of the two laws, then?  That is to say, how do you reconcile the fact that, according to your paradigm, both a so-called "greater" and a so-called "lesser" law apparently are in force at the same time, when in all other cases that I can think of off hand, the Lord rescinded a lesser law when He instituted a greater one (the former being superseded by the latter)?  And do you think Joseph of Egypt was actually demonstrating a lack of faith when he counseled Pharaoh to lay up provisions in store against famine, and that counsel later enabled Joseph to save the rest of his family?

 

Well, you're in luck!  The Lord, in His Omniscience and Foresight, has commanded us to both lay up food and other provisions against a day of want and to obey the Law of the Fast by fasting one day a month and donating what would have been spent on food (or more, if we are able) for a Fast Offering.  I hereby release you from your moral quandary relative to the former command!

 

If you've been to the temple you will know that the law of consecration is still alive and is a requirement of the saints by covenant. This does not mean we do not also pay tithing.

 

Your example of Egypt is a good point in support of my position. The Egyptians did not believe in Jehovah so the higher law did not apply here. So the Lord used Joseph to give them a lower law. The Israelites (Jacob's family) relied on the Lord alone ie. the higher law. There was no instruction to them to store food in the years of plenty recorded in the scriptures. Indeed, the fact that they had no food is evidence of that. However, by the Lord's devine provedence they were fed. The Lord used the Egyptians in order to feed them.

Like I said, this supports my view very well.

 

Your point regarding fast offerings is a poor one. If we didn't spend funds on ourselves (our own food store) we would be able to give more to the poor and save the maximum number of lives. For this reason we are also instructed to exercise stewardship over our lives to ensure we do not have more than is sufficient for our needs.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Alan

[Stargazer]

First of all I'm not entirely convinced it's the Lord's will that we have a year supply of food storage.  While the Federal government has its share of problems, I think your comment that the Feds are terrible at everything it tries is a wee bit extreme.   I've noticed that for the polemists whether you hate or respect the Federal government simply depends on whether or not your guy is in the White House.

 

You say this while the HealthCare.gov website has its metaphorical pants down around its ankles trying to trudge up an 80 degree incline, while the most optimistic (i.e. politically liberal) opinion sources are estimating that it won't get its ducks in a row until after the New Year.  You say this while the Post Office delivers mail at a horrendous loss, while UPS and other commercial carriers make money hand over fist.  I will grant you that the federal government does have areas of competency, but the kind of disaster that would make our food storage life-saving are the kinds of disasters that FEMA is not prepared to deal with.  Katrina being a recent example.

 

It's the government that tells us to have a two week supply of necessities, not the Church.  Maybe they're lying, but if they say something like this, then such an admission strongly suggests that they aren't ready to deal with disasters reliably enough.

 

My guy was in the White House during Katrina, and the federal government's response was still lame.  The reason my guys are in Lousiana's governor's mansion now is because the other guys were there during Katrina, and sat on their thrones in a state of thoughtless stupor while the state flooded; but if my guys had been there instead and likewise ran in circles looking for someone else to blame for their lack of preparation and failure to respond adequately, then I still would have been saying "Don't trust that the government is going to pull your nuts out of the fire -- be provident and be ready, just in case."

 

I don't necessarily CARE if it's the Lord's will that we have year's supply of food storage.  It's yet to be proven to me that the Lord wants me to learn to swim, or to know how to change my flat tire, but by Golly I don't think I need to get The Word From On High before I do stuff.

 

It's smart to be prepared for eventualities.  It's stupid to assume that someone else is going to take care of everything for you.

[omni]

You say this while the HealthCare.gov website has its metaphorical pants down around its ankles trying to trudge up an 80 degree incline, while the most optimistic (i.e. politically liberal) opinion sources are estimating that it won't get its ducks in a row until after the New Year. 

 

 

I said that the Federal government does have its problems, the ACA website certainly being one of them.  The poster said that everything the governent does is terrible, which would presumably include the military, national parks system, the CDC, those agencys that protect our health and well being, Department of Justice, etc. 

 

It's the government that tells us to have a two week supply of necessities, not the Church. Maybe they're lying, but if they say something like this, then such an admission strongly suggests that they aren't ready to deal with disasters reliably enough.

 

 

I have repeatedly said there is nothing wrong with being prepared, but I do wonder why the need for a one-year food storage when I have seen nothing in the past (since the directive) to warrant it.  I don't see any likely event in the future that would necessitate a long-term food storage.  Could I be wrong?  Sure, but if we're worried about actions or events that might cause us harm in the future, why not focus our efforts on activities/priciples such as regular excercise and low fat diets, or regular doctor visits, safe driving etc that we know will benefit us.  Sure we hear about these benefits from the secular world, but with the prophet's continual endorcement I think you'd see their practice greatly improved among the members. 

 

If people want to use food storage as way to help them with provident living, that's great, but am I sinning or disobeying the prophets if I choose to instead put money aside in a savings account which could then be used for fresh food or repairs, etc? 

 

 

It's smart to be prepared for eventualities. It's stupid to assume that someone else is going to take care of everything for you

 

 

Agreed.

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2013 by Sleeper Cell

[Sleeper Cell]

I have repeatedly said there is nothing wrong with being prepared, but I do wonder why the need for a one-year food storage when I have seen nothing in the past (since the directive) to warrant it.  I don't see any likely event in the future that would necessitate a long-term food storage.  

 

 

 

And the residents and the local, state, and federal disaster management agencies thought that a disaster of the magnitude of Katrina was such an unlikely event that they failed to seriously “contemplate a disaster of … [that]  magnitude, let alone … [have] a realistic plan (or resources) to respond.” The lack of planning and preparation for unlikely events, plus the bureaucratic infighting  are what turned this disaster into a catastrophe.   

 

From the study I previously cited:

 

One parish lost all communications for a week, except for runners.  In another parish: “Local government ceased to exist.  Six (6) weeks elapsed before the first organized “mutual aid” arrived in the Parish … [since] all of the available resources got ‘sucked into the City of New Orleans.’.  The outlaying areas got virtually nothing.”  

 

Perhaps Stargazer and I look at things differently because, as disaster responders, we are more aware of what can go wrong.  

[Sleeper Cell]

Joining this thread late.

I have a different take on food storage than most people I know. I believe it is instruction for those of little faith. The Lord knows that many of his disciples do not have sufficient faith to trust him fully right now, so he has given us a lesser law.

In the Bible, and in the Book of Mormon, and in the D&C (three times take note) he gives us his higher law. It is that we are to take no thought for food, drink or clothing. None at all. He even goes on to explain that he feeds the birds ok, even though they don't sow or reap, or gather into barns and that we are much more important than them.

 

Personally, I believe it is morally indefensible to hoard food when many in this world are starving. The money we spend on amassing food could be given to those who provide for the starving, and would make an immediate difference. It would quite literally save lives.

 

 

Since when is it "morally indefensible" to obey any law the Lord gives us?  Conceivably, you might argue that one who obeys “the higher law” is  “morally superior,”  but that doesn’t make it morally indefensible to obey the “lesser law” (at least, not until the Lord revokes it).   

 

I do believe that there is a level beyond which spending money on luxuries is immoral  -- an American tourist vacationing in  London comes to mind.      But basic food and water are not luxuries. As others pointed out, gradually accumulating food storage in a judicious manner may actually reduce your food budget in the long term, since it is cheaper to wait for an item to go on sale and then buy in bulk.  Then you would have even more money to feed the poor. Most Americans can certainly reduce their expenditures on “fast food,” and spend part of the savings on food storage..  

 

It is unfair and misleading to describe the Mormon practice of food storage as “hoarding.”   For starters, “hoarding” usually implies secrecy. The Church does not hide the fact that it encourages its members to store food.  Indeed, it goes out of its way to encourage members of the general public to also store food.  Even worse, “hoarding” implies selfish motivations.   Do you really believe that Stargazer is storing food for selfish reasons?  He took the initiative to get his HAM license. He donates his time to train weekly to prepare himself to help others in the event of a disaster.  He has actually helped people in real disasters. How much would he had been able to help others, if he didn’t have food and water for himself and his family? Almost certainly, he has purchased his own HAM radio gear. Suppose he had given that money to the poor, rather than buy his radio equipment or pay for his license?  According to the report I cited, disaster response to Katrina was greatly hampered in at least one Louisiana parish (county) by the lack of any communications other than by runner.  They sure could have used a few “Stargazers” -- volunteers with specialized training, their own radio equipment, and their own food storage and other emergency supplies, enabling them to leave their families to help others.  

 

In the US, the government encourages people to “hoard” food and water, not only because it helps those people, but it also helps the community at large.  Why? Because resources will not have to be diverted from others to help them. And then will be in a position to help others.  

[Alan]

 

Since when is it "morally indefensible" to obey any law the Lord gives us?  Conceivably, you might argue that one who obeys “the higher law” is  “morally superior,”  but that doesn’t make it morally indefensible to obey the “lesser law” (at least, not until the Lord revokes it).   

 

 

 

 

 

Please show me where the direction to accumulate a years supply of food is a "law the Lord gives us".

[Sleeper Cell]

Please show me where the direction to accumulate a years supply of food is a "law the Lord gives us".

 

I was defending the concept of food storage -- not specifically “a year’s supply -- against your assertion that it was “morally indefensible. 

 

You stated that food storage, per se, was given to us by the Lord.    

 

.

I have a different take on food storage than most people I know. I believe it is instruction for those of little faith. The Lord knows that many of his disciples do not have sufficient faith to trust him fully right now, so he has given us a lesser law

 

 

Then you said that storing food (you called it  “hoarding”) was “morally indefensible.”  

 

 

Personally, I believe it is morally indefensible to hoard food when many in this world are starving.

 

 

I asked how can you say that it is  “morally indefensible” to store food, if you believe  that the storing food is a law given to us by the Lord.    

 

BTW, I believe that there is a point where personal food storage does becomes excessive and even morally problematic. The example given in the OP comes to mind (spending $1000 for water storage containers when you have only a limited income and are tens of thousands of dollars in debt-- especially since 55 gal drums can be purchased for as little as $30.00 each). The “bunker mentality” (I’ve got my food storage and the heck with everybody else) is morally indefensible. It is also stupid.  Your chances of survival are greatly enhanced by working with your neighbors.  Furthermore, it is in you economic self-interest (to say nothing of your emotional and mental health) if your neighbors can rebuild their homes and help restore a semblance of normal community life.  

[followerofemmanuel]

It seemed that when I was growing food storage was encouraged as a preparation for the Second Coming and the related natural disasters, but more recently I've noticed a change in emphasis towards it being more of an insurance during difficult financial times.  In this day and age is there really a need for a two-year supply of food?  In the United States and most of the world's wealthy countries the government will provide assistance in case of a natural disaster.  In poorer countries where this can't necessarily be accomplished I would think most members would be struggling to provide the basic necessities, let alone a two-year supply.  

 

This has been on my mind recently because my FIL purchased some water tanks for his food storage that cost him nearly $1000.  He has probably spent thousands more on an entire room filled with emergency supplies and freeze-dried food.  He's quite conservative and believes President Obama's re-election has "hastened the coming of the Lord".  The problem is that he is living on social security with no savings, and tens of thousands of dollars in debt.  He does not have the funds to make these purchases, but continues to do so because the brethren have asked us to.  So in your view, what is the purpose of food storage?  Why is there such a focus on it when there doesn't seem to be such a need?  When does it go from being a nice way to prepare to being a hindrance?

 

I've wondered too about how much to be prepared for the "what if's".  I have seen so many video's on youtube of "prepper's" with huge store houses of supplies. What happens if their worst scenario plays out for, world wide economy crash, etc.  In these worst case scenario's people are planning for, do you think people would lose their homes if they are renting, or being mortgaged.  What would they do with their food, where would they go?  These are the scenario's that make me wonder.  I think its prudent to have a few months of supplies but when does it get out of control?  I'd sincerely value hearing your thoughts on this.

 

Edited November 6, 2013 by followerofemmanuel

[Calm]

I think it becomes out of control when you are stocking stuff you will never use (except perhaps for the emergency rations that no one in their right mind would eat except in emergency...but that should be a very small part of one's stash) or spending money you don't have on it.  Food storage should be done in a way that is prudent, that helps the current financial situation (by buying stuff you actually use so that it is not money down the drain if nothing happens before the expiration date) as much as the future; it shouldn't be looked on as something for emergencies only but as part of one's current lifestyle...like eating good food, following a decent budget, exercise and all wise lifestyle choices.