Law of consecration

[Alkili]

I hate to break it to all of the wealthy Americans, but the Law of Consecration is something that we should be striving for.

Tithing is a lower law that we were given because we were not ready for the higher law. We need to prepair ourselves to be ready to live this law someday.

I get the feeling that this is going to be a make it or break it issue with a lot of members. They are so caught up in getting theirs that they forgot that it isn't their's at all. The Lord gives us what we have and expects us to use it to further his work and help the poor.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Alkili

I hate to break it to all of the wealthy Americans, but the Law of Consecration is something that we should be striving for.

Tithing is a lower law that we were given because we were not ready for the higher law. We need to prepair ourselves to be ready to live this law someday.

I get the feeling that this is going to be a make it or break it issue with a lot of members. They are so caught up in getting theirs that they forgot that it isn't their's at all. The Lord gives us what we have and expects us to use it to further his work and help the poor.

It will never fly. If you think we're perceived as a cult now, wait until we're asked to turn over all of our possessions to the Church. It is clearly the Church's desire to increase Church membership and to make the Church appear more mainstream. The Law of Consecration would frustrate both of those goals. It would drive people away from the Church in droves and instantly create the impression that we are not a religion but a money-grubbing cult. It would cause irreparable damage and the Church has too much at stake to risk it.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It will never fly. If you think we're perceived as a cult now, wait until we're asked to turn over all of our possessions to the Church. It is clearly the Church's desire to increase Church membership and to make the Church appear more mainstream. The Law of Consecration would frustrate both of those goals. It would drive people away from the Church in droves and instantly create the impression that we are not a religion but a money-grubbing cult. It would cause irreparable damage and the Church has too much at stake to risk it.

People are being asked to give more and more to the church all the time, I don't think it will be an announcement given over general confrence as much as in a bishop's office letting a member know what the need is. You probably know someone who has been asked to quit their job in order to serve in a greater capacity in the Church.

I just hope that members are prepairing themselves to give everything they have, because a lot of them have already agreed to do it.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Alkili

You probably know someone who has been asked to quit their job in order to serve in a greater capacity in the Church.

I just hope that members are prepairing themselves to give everything they have, because a lot of them have already agreed to do it.

It's one thing to change jobs, but another thing entirely to turn over your paycheck to the Church. The last time I checked, people working in the Church Office Building were all drawing paychecks.

[All-American]

It will be interesting to see how the law of consecration is implemented. We were given the law of tithing because we aren't able to follow the law of consecration. That leads me to believe that we'll not see the law of consecration until it becomes a necessity-- times of starvation or otherwise. At any rate, when the call comes, I suspect that our reputation among our neighbors will be the least of our concerns.

We're definitely not any more ready for it than were our ancestors of the 1830's. If it were to be called for today, things would get ugly.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It's one thing to change jobs, but another thing entirely to turn over your paycheck to the Church. The last time I checked, people working in the Church Office Building were all drawing paychecks.

I know of a few couple missionaries that have been asked to give up more money then they make so they can serve a mission. I also know a mission pres. who was asked to quit his job sell his house so he can finish his calling.

I guess I might have thought that these people were more common throughout the chuch but i'm probably wrong. But I bet you can think of people who work for the church who could be making a lot more some where else. Think of some of the people who work for BYU or BYU I.

[Goatnapper'96]

is intended to meet both needs and wants. The kicker is this, it is a celestial law intened to be lived by those prepared to live it. Hence, it is hoped that those folks are qualified to righteously define their wants.

The law of consecration began with the Saints voluntarily turning over their property to the Church. If it is asked of the Saints to live the law of consecration again, I am not so convinced that is how it will be initiated as our collective resources are significantly more and it probably not neccesary to absorb many emigrants. Many do not understand how the law is applicated. It is not similar to Socialism in any manner. Once the assets were voluntarily given to the Church, they were returned to the members in large. Obviously in this transfer the wealthy members probably came out poorer in material possesions than where they started. However, once the assets were disseminated to the Saints deeds of ownership were signed over and the Saints owned what the Church gave them. The law of consecration is actually based upon private property and the law of stewardship. One is held accountable for what they do with the private property they have. After meeting their needs and wants the "residue" is to be turned over to the Bishop's Storehouse. Similar to Tithing Settlement each Bishop is to settle with the members of his stewardship as to how they lived the law.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

is intended to meet both needs and wants. The kicker is this, it is a celestial law intened to be lived by those prepared to live it. Hence, it is hoped that those folks are qualified to righteously define their wants.

The law of consecration began with the Saints voluntarily turning over their property to the Church. If it is asked of the Saints to live the law of consecration again, I am not so convinced that is how it will be initiated as our collective resources are significantly more and it probably not neccesary to absorb many emigrants. Many do not understand how the law is applicated. It is not similar to Socialism in any manner. Once the assets were voluntarily given to the Church, they were returned to the members in large. Obviously in this transfer the wealthy members probably came out poorer in material possesions than where they started. However, once the assets were disseminated to the Saints deeds of ownership were signed over and the Saints owned what the Church gave them. The law of consecration is actually based upon private property and the law of stewardship. One is held accountable for what they do with the private property they have. After meeting their needs and wants the "residue" is to be turned over to the Bishop's Storehouse. Similar to Tithing Settlement each Bishop is to settle with the members of his stewardship as to how they lived the law.

what is the purpose of this law?

seriously i dont get why this law is needed. if the push is for equality than why didnt the lord create us all equally to begin with. there are very specific reasons some people have brighter candles than others, why are we attempting to make everyone the same?

and goat come on, the law of consecration and socialism are twins. they might not be identical twins but they are twins. i dont know why people of the lds faith have such a hard time accepting this. i know a few leaders of the church and their racist leanings have sprouted misconceptions about the evils of socialism, but i thought wed be past that in 2006...

[ute4ever]

If you have ever attended a general conference session in the conference center, then you might walk away with the same opinion of church members that I did: that they are closer to being Marxists than consecrating socialists. Because brotha, once those doors open, it's every man for himself.

[Goatnapper'96]

on socialism...this is basic Poly Sci, probably a subject that is woefully taught at the BYU, but at that bastion of open minded thought that is the United States Military Academy it is very basic. So allow me to wax eloquent, without any gratuitous references to oversized man made secondary mammory glands......

The purpose of the law is to teach the law of stewardship. Its purpose is to help mankind to progress towards exaltation. It is to help man to overcome his selfishness and freely give. This is where we diverge with this socialism comparison. In socialism the government owns everything. There is no private property. If the purpose of the law of consecration is to help man towards exaltation and overcome their selfishness, this is only possible if what they have is owned by them in a mortal sense, i.e. making them the stewards, and they have their free agency to give freely. Hence it is very different than socialism. Certainly, there is the desire of taking care the poor and that is part of the law of consecration, but it being a Celestial Law there will be fewer poor, if you believe that lazyness and idolatry are some of principle causes of poverty.

The taking care of the poor is a by product of the real goal, IMO. I think you are caught around the axle about socialism because of your liberal political leanings. There are aspects of socialism that are similar to the law of consecration, in that those with means supposedly take care of those without. However, socialism seeks to eradicte those with means from society. It seeks to level all and seeks for equality of results. The law of consecration still believes in the free market mechanisms that determines at what level folks are compensated for their professional services. Under the law of consecration one would hope the incentive to be highly compensated is based upon the desire to help others, however mortally that is unlikely so capitalism replaces the desire to help others with selfishness and greed.

At their root they are vastly different and to argue their similarities demonstrates that you misunderstand socialism, the law of consecration or both. The entire law hinges upon stewardship, which demands private property. This fundamental premise prevents it from ever being similar to the socialism, despite they both having the theoretical result of taking care of those unable to take care of themselves. Further, socialism removes free agency, when enforced by the government, which is very fundamental to the progression concept.

So I conclude that some of the mormons who argue the huge difference do such because of an understanding of both systems, but I can only speak for myself.

Never forget that BOOBS ARE IN!