LDS Mormons Call Them Saving Ordinances

[ArmenianJohn]

Nutshell:

The Bishop's Storehouse is part of the church's welfare system.

If a person is in financial need, they can appeal to the church for help. A person *could* just walk in off of the street and ask for it, but the fact that the bishop of that particular congregation has the right to examine the person's financials usually dissuades people who simply want theirs.

Yes, that happens. Actually witnessed it once. Some random person called up the congregation I was in, said "I heard you have a welfare system", and got upset when told that we weren't simply doling things out at random.

Once the bishop has examined the financials, they can then determine what assistance a person needs. In some instances, what the person needs is someone to tell them that they're not living within their means and that they need to make some hard choices. In other instances, what the person needs is help managing their money; they do make enough, but they're not staying on top of their bills and other expenses.

If it's determined that a person really is falling short despite their best efforts, then the bishop makes a judgement call from there as to how best to help them. It may be that the church will pay one or more of the person's bills that month, giving them some breathing room. It may be that the bishop will authorize them to draw supplies from the Storehouse, thereby giving them food and household goods to supplement what they have (if anything).

Much of the material in the Bishop's Storehouse is produced by Deseret Industries or another company that the church has key ownership stake in. Deseret Industries product is only available through the Storehouse, and so there's an attached reputation to it; basically, if someone spots DI products, it's understood what's going on.

Some of the material - including food items like certain types of dried fruit - is actually produced by the Seventh-Day Adventists. The SDAs can produce these items more efficiently than we can, and in exchange we help them handle the logistics for their own aid programs.

The rest is purchased as close to local for the individual Storehouse as possible. This is usually things like produce, dairy, and bread, things that are perishable and need constant replacement. For other items, like toiletries and personal care items, the church goes with whatever national brand will cut them the best bulk discount.

Under certain circumstances, the bishop does have the right to ask whoever is taking this assistance to perform volunteer work in exchange. Thing is, this volunteer work can actually go on a resume, making the person more attractive to potential employers.

So nothing is actually free, there are stipulations in every case. Got it, thanks!

 

[BigDaddy4]

Similarly, tithing records are checked for "worthiness" for temple recommends.

 

[He is the way]

So it's not charity, it's work. After all they can do...

Some people don't have the ability to work. Some are just lazy:

(Old Testament | Proverbs 13:4)

4 The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.

 

[Ironhold]

Tell me again what makes such people worthy of looking into others' finances? Even if someone shows up at their storehouse after having squandered their money, I bet the person would not have done so by, say, opening a $1.5 billion dollar shopping mall...

Actually, what happened was that circa 2002, the church said "Wow but much of Downtown SLC is blighted. We need to do something about it."

The church then bought a large chunk of blighted area - including the mall - for urban renewal. Some buildings were fixed up, while others were demolished. This includes a number of buildings taken down to make room for more parking structures (sorely needed) and more green space (also sorely needed).

The mall is simply the anchor.

**

As far as the "13 companies" bit goes -

Back when the church was still settling Utah, it was often the only entity with enough resources and cash on hand to start something up that the locals needed. For example, it created ZCMI, regarded as the world's first department store chain, as a common mercantile.

This is something that the church has continued doing even today.

Companies that the church feels it no longer needs are divested (like ZCMI) or spun off (at least one insurance company). The rest are operated as wholly-owned subsidiaries; they can make their own choices and run their own businesses, but the church retains the right to oversee everything and utilize at least some portion of what they do. For example, Deseret Book prints some of the church's materials.

 

[He is the way]

Similarly, tithing records are checked for "worthiness" for temple recommends.

No they are not.

 

[Ironhold]

No they are not.

To be specific, you're only asked if you are a full tithe-payer.

It's virtually unheard of for someone to demand records.

 

[dzheremi]

Actually, what happened was that circa 2002, the church said "Wow but much of Downtown SLC is blighted. We need to do something about it."

The church then bought a large chunk of blighted area - including the mall - for urban renewal. Some buildings were fixed up, while others were demolished. This includes a number of buildings taken down to make room for more parking structures (sorely needed) and more green space (also sorely needed).

The mall is simply the anchor.

**

As far as the "13 companies" bit goes -

Back when the church was still settling Utah, it was often the only entity with enough resources and cash on hand to start something up that the locals needed. For example, it created ZCMI, regarded as the world's first department store chain, as a common mercantile.

This is something that the church has continued doing even today.

Companies that the church feels it no longer needs are divested (like ZCMI) or spun off (at least one insurance company). The rest are operated as wholly-owned subsidiaries; they can make their own choices and run their own businesses, but the church retains the right to oversee everything and utilize at least some portion of what they do. For example, Deseret Book prints some of the church's materials.

This is all fine (I have nothing against the LDS church or any other religious organization owning its own publishing houses or whatever related to its activities), but it's missing the point I was making, which was that it is pretty strange to force Mormon individuals seeking help from their own church to allow their bishops to look over their personal finances so as to make sure that helping this person wouldn't be throwing good money after bad when not only does the LDS Church itself not present its own finances for scrutiny, but also uses some of its surplus to do things like opening shopping malls. Presumably, the individual who turns to the LDS church for help did not squander his own money on a shopping mall, so how on earth is it the LDS church's business what the indigent do or did when they (the LDS church) do spend their money on such things, and are far less transparent about it than they are now forcing the indigent to be about their own financial mistakes?

It is my understanding that the LDS church only has this money to begin with due to donations/tithes, so you could imagine that a world in which LDS donors treated their church in the same way that their church treats them (i.e., saying "we will not be giving you a dime until you disclose in specifics what you are doing with the money/if we don't find you 'worthy' of our money") would either find the LDS church going belly-up rather quick (...or at least it would be so if the LDS didn't actually have a surplus of other peoples' money; eventually even that would run its course, however), and/or suddenly being much more transparent about their finances than they currently are, in recognition of the fact that when you're tight-lipped about your own finances while mandating that others to be fully up-front with you about theirs, and then you turn around and play Monopoly with other peoples' money, it's bound to tick a lot of them off...and of course an angry donation-base is likely to shrink if you're seen as being unresponsive to it (hence the recent limited and heavily managed peeks behind the curtain, as I've already posted about in this thread).

 

[Jane_Doe]

This is all fine (I have nothing against the LDS church or any other religious organization owning its own publishing houses or whatever related to its activities), but it's missing the point I was making, which was that it is pretty strange to force Mormon individuals seeking help from their own church to allow their bishops to look over their personal finances so as to make sure that helping this person wouldn't be throwing good money after bad when not only does the LDS Church itself not present its own finances for scrutiny, but also uses some of its surplus to do things like opening shopping malls. Presumably, the individual who turns to the LDS church for help did not squander his own money on a shopping mall, so how on earth is it the LDS church's business what the indigent do or did when they (the LDS church) do spend their money on such things, and are far less transparent about it than they are now forcing the indigent to be about their own financial mistakes?

It is my understanding that the LDS church only has this money to begin with due to donations/tithes, so you could imagine that a world in which LDS donors treated their church in the same way that their church treats them (i.e., saying "we will not be giving you a dime until you disclose in specifics what you are doing with the money/if we don't find you 'worthy' of our money") would either find the LDS church going belly-up rather quick (...or at least it would be so if the LDS didn't actually have a surplus of other peoples' money; eventually even that would run its course, however), and/or suddenly being much more transparent about their finances than they currently are, in recognition of the fact that when you're tight-lipped about your own finances while mandating that others to be fully up-front with you about theirs, and then you turn around and play Monopoly with other peoples' money, it's bound to tick a lot of them off...and of course an angry donation-base is likely to shrink if you're seen as being unresponsive to it (hence the recent limited and heavily managed peeks behind the curtain, as I've already posted about in this thread).

If a person doesn't want to accept the conditions of seeking LDS church help, then they don't have to seek LDS church help.
If a person doesn't want to trust the LDS church to properly handle tithes and finances, then they don't have to be involved with that.
Simple as that.

 

[dzheremi]

Yep. I agree. I'm only saying that it seems pretty hypocritical on the part of the LDS church that it is unwilling to practice itself what it demands of its members, and that this is especially contemptible in this context because this hypocrisy is realized in its approach to its most vulnerable: those who have come to it seeking help.

Is it somehow not enough that they know they've messed up by the very fact that they have gotten to the point of having to reach out in this way? The nearest parallel I think of in a traditional Christian church (though it's pretty different) is probably confession, in the sense that this is the time in which the church has a reasonable expectation that you will be 100% upfront and honest with your father of confession, since the entire thing relies on that honesty. If, hypothetically, I were to go to my father of confession and tell him "Father, I need your help; please receive my confession" and he were to respond to me "Oh, I don't know, son; I don't know if you're worthy of my help, since I received your confession some time ago already", I would be incredibly scandalized and hurt, because of course the background context of the confession is that I am already in trouble. If I just didn't care, I wouldn't ask for it, and of course the fact that I had asked for it before and now have to ask for it again shows that I am still struggling. I, in essence, failed in one way or another since the last confession (roughly analogous to the man who makes himself indigent by his own actions), and hence have to come back and say "I know I don't deserve it, buuuuut..."

It strikes me that the entire Christian religion can be looked at in this way: We know we don't deserve grace or salvation or any of the Lord's gifts, but we ask for them anyway. And the more fine-tooth the comb used to go over every last reason why we don't deserve them, or every example of us squandering what we have been given, the more we will be seen as unworthy, because we truly are. We truly are unworthy. So the LDS church scheme in which those who are proven to be unworthy are turned away looks like the exact opposite model than that upon which the Christian religion operates, much to the detriment of the LDS claim that they operate in a manner after Christ.

 

[He is the way]

When the Bible states that works are necessary for repentance it is fine with Christians. Why is that since you say works are not necessary? Looks like the Book of Mormon has it right:

(New Testament | Matthew 3:7 - 8)

7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:


(New Testament | Acts 26:20)

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

 

[Rescued One]

Yep. I agree. I'm only saying that it seems pretty hypocritical on the part of the LDS church that it is unwilling to practice itself what it demands of its members, and that this is especially contemptible in this context because this hypocrisy is realized in its approach to its most vulnerable: those who have come to it seeking help.

Is it somehow not enough that they know they've messed up by the very fact that they have gotten to the point of having to reach out in this way? The nearest parallel I think of in a traditional Christian church (though it's pretty different) is probably confession, in the sense that this is the time in which the church has a reasonable expectation that you will be 100% upfront and honest with your father of confession, since the entire thing relies on that honesty. If, hypothetically, I were to go to my father of confession and tell him "Father, I need your help; please receive my confession" and he were to respond to me "Oh, I don't know, son; I don't know if you're worthy of my help, since I received your confession some time ago already", I would be incredibly scandalized and hurt, because of course the background context of the confession is that I am already in trouble. If I just didn't care, I wouldn't ask for it, and of course the fact that I had asked for it before and now have to ask for it again shows that I am still struggling. I, in essence, failed in one way or another since the last confession (roughly analogous to the man who makes himself indigent by his own actions), and hence have to come back and say "I know I don't deserve it, buuuuut..."

It strikes me that the entire Christian religion can be looked at in this way: We know we don't deserve grace or salvation or any of the Lord's gifts, but we ask for them anyway. And the more fine-tooth the comb used to go over every last reason why we don't deserve them, or every example of us squandering what we have been given, the more we will be seen as unworthy, because we truly are. We truly are unworthy. So the LDS church scheme in which those who are proven to be unworthy are turned away looks like the exact opposite model than that upon which the Christian religion operates, much to the detriment of the LDS claim that they operate in a manner after Christ.

WOW!

 

[Rescued One]

When the Bible states that works are necessary for repentance it is fine with Christians. Why is that since you say works are not necessary? Looks like the Book of Mormon has it right:

(New Testament | Matthew 3:7 - 8)

7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:


(New Testament | Acts 26:20)

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Oh, how we love Jesus and love walking in the Light!

He saved us so that we will walk as children of light.

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
1 Corinthians 15:10

 

[ArmenianJohn]

When the Bible states that works are necessary for repentance it is fine with Christians. Why is that since you say works are not necessary? Looks like the Book of Mormon has it right:

(New Testament | Matthew 3:7 - 8)

7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:


(New Testament | Acts 26:20)

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Again, it's because works are necessary for repentance in the sense that they are a necessary result of true repentance.

This has been explained by me and others several times. I don't know if you are ignoring or misunderstanding what we're saying but I notice you keep reverting to intentionally vague statements such as "works are necessary for repentance".

The disagreement between mormonism and Christianity in this discussion is not about the simple phrase "works are necessary for repentance". Such a phrase does not capture the disagreement. Both Christianity and mormonism can agree on that vague statement.

The disagreement comes from the specifics which such a statement leaves out. That specific point is whether or not works is required to attain salvation or required as an outcome of salvation. This is a huge point. This determines the gospel message for mormonism and Christianity, each.

The Christian Gospel, from the Bible, says that works are an outcome of salvation, being based in true faith and repentance, after salvation is already attained. The mormon gospel says that works are part of the attainment process of salvation, combined with some degree of faith and repentance (i.e. "all you can do").

To make it even simpler:
CHRISTIANITY: Repentance/Faith gains salvation; works must follow, else the repentance/faith is not valid.
MORMONISM: Repentance/Faith PLUS Works (ALL that you can do) gains salvation; faith and works must continue or salvation can be lost.

So by saying "works are necessary for salvation" you're not addressing the actual disagreement. You're making a vague statement that CAN be agreed to by both but that statement also ignores the finer and critical point of HOW works are related to salvation.

Here is the difference from Scriptures:
Christian Scripture (The Bible) - "For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."
Mormon scripture (Book of Mormon) - "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

Note the contrast - both say "saved by grace" but the Bible (Christian Gospel) says NOT of works, lest any man should boast" whereas the Book of Mormon DIRECTLY contradicts that, saying "after all we can do."

Works can be considered a part of salvation in both cases, but it is critical in defining GRACE correctly to separate works from grace. The Christian Gospel throughout the Bible makes that distinction emphatically whereas the mormon gospel does the opposite and commingles the two, thereby going directly against the Christian Gospel.

 

[He is the way]

Oh, how we love Jesus and love walking in the Light!

He saved us so that we will walk as children of light. View attachment 233762 View attachment 233761 View attachment 233761 View attachment 233761

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
1 Corinthians 15:10

Good scripture, but I don't see how it relates to my comment.

 

[Rescued One]

Good scripture, but I don't see how it relates to my comment.

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

Paul was made a follower of Christ by God, not by Paul's works.

2 Timothy 2
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Paul recognized that it was God Who showed him the truth.

 

[He is the way]

Again, it's because works are necessary for repentance in the sense that they are a necessary result of true repentance.

This has been explained by me and others several times. I don't know if you are ignoring or misunderstanding what we're saying but I notice you keep reverting to intentionally vague statements such as "works are necessary for repentance".

The disagreement between mormonism and Christianity in this discussion is not about the simple phrase "works are necessary for repentance". Such a phrase does not capture the disagreement. Both Christianity and mormonism can agree on that vague statement.

The disagreement comes from the specifics which such a statement leaves out. That specific point is whether or not works is required to attain salvation or required as an outcome of salvation. This is a huge point. This determines the gospel message for mormonism and Christianity, each.

The Christian Gospel, from the Bible, says that works are an outcome of salvation, being based in true faith and repentance, after salvation is already attained. The mormon gospel says that works are part of the attainment process of salvation, combined with some degree of faith and repentance (i.e. "all you can do").

To make it even simpler:
CHRISTIANITY: Repentance/Faith gains salvation; works must follow, else the repentance/faith is not valid.
MORMONISM: Repentance/Faith PLUS Works (ALL that you can do) gains salvation; faith and works must continue or salvation can be lost.

So by saying "works are necessary for salvation" you're not addressing the actual disagreement. You're making a vague statement that CAN be agreed to by both but that statement also ignores the finer and critical point of HOW works are related to salvation.

Here is the difference from Scriptures:
Christian Scripture (The Bible) - "For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."
Mormon scripture (Book of Mormon) - "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

Note the contrast - both say "saved by grace" but the Bible (Christian Gospel) says NOT of works, lest any man should boast" whereas the Book of Mormon DIRECTLY contradicts that, saying "after all we can do."

Works can be considered a part of salvation in both cases, but it is critical in defining GRACE correctly to separate works from grace. The Christian Gospel throughout the Bible makes that distinction emphatically whereas the mormon gospel does the opposite and commingles the two, thereby going directly against the Christian Gospel.

There are many stipulations mentioned in the Bible that are based on salvation. It is not based entirely on grace although without grace there would be no salvation. I have shown that repentance is invalid without works. Faith is dead and unable to save. We are ordained to do works. Those who believe in Jesus will do His works. Those who do not work deny Christ. We glorify God by works. The slothful servant is cast into outer darkness. By their deeds are they known. Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cast into the fire. The Bible indeed testifies that we are saved by grace after all that we can do.

(Old Testament | Proverbs 13:4)

4 The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.

 

[Rescued One]

Are you forgiven, He is the way?

"Living all the commandments guarantees total forgiveness of sins and assures one of exaltation."
President Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 208

 

[He is the way]

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

Paul was made a follower of Christ by God, not by Paul's works.

2 Timothy 2
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Paul recognized that it was God Who showed him the truth.

Yes God showed Paul the truth and Paul "laboured more abundantly" because "His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain" Paul was diligent in doing all that he could do.

 

[He is the way]

Are you forgiven, He is the way?

"Living all the commandments guarantees total forgiveness of sins and assures one of exaltation."
President Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 208

(New Testament | John 15:8 - 10)

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

 

[Ironhold]

This is all fine (I have nothing against the LDS church or any other religious organization owning its own publishing houses or whatever related to its activities), but it's missing the point I was making,

There are people for whom "giving them more money" is the worst thing that can happen when what they need is help managing what they already have.

That's the whole point.

but also uses some of its surplus to do things like opening shopping malls.

IIRC, much of the money used for things like this is... taken from money from other ventures. Tithing's only a portion of the picture.

and of course an angry donation-base is likely to shrink if you're seen as being unresponsive to it (hence the recent limited and heavily managed peeks behind the curtain, as I've already posted about in this thread).

Actually, it's pretty well taken for granted what the church is doing with everything.