Law of consecration

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

I'm not certain that the city of Enoch practiced anything quite like the United Order. I think the Utopian environment was the result of righteousness, and their living of God's moral laws. I'm not certain that there was any sort of state sanctioned redistribution of wealth going on. I doubt there was any poor among them, but that was probably more the result of unrestrained charity than any official program to take from the rich and give to the poor.

What do you suggest was the mode by which unrestrained charity managed to eliminate poverty? In the end, it boils down to this: those with surplus goods would give to those who have not surplus goods, correct? All the United Order is is a way to most effectively do so. The owners decide what is surplus, and give it to the man who is most keenly aware of the needs of those under his care. I don't know that the United Order is ultimately much different than our current Fast Offerings system, except that under the United Order, more is asked of the wealthier.

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

As for taking a stance in opposition to the bretheren? There are a number of times in church history that I wish good and moral members had made their voices heard. We probably wouldn't have had the mountain meadows massacre (among other bloody events), polygamy/polyandry, the Kirtland Bank, etc. if they had. Some of the darkest hours in church history happened because our leaders made decisions in secret, and without challenge from the body of the church. I realize this seems like defiance, even pride. But I won't be counted among those that do terrible things in the name of the almighty god, and at the request of my preisthood leaders.

Admittedly, fanaticism is to be avoided at all costs. Even Brigham Young, of all people, worried that the Saints would stop analyzing what he said and take his word without prayerfully considering it and deciding if it was true. Iluvatar also said that we may be on shakier ground if we accept what those in authority say without thinking about it, and that may very well be true. Fanaticism is the uber-adherance to 15% of the given rules while neglecting, ignorantly or otherwise, the rest of them. Look at the Pharisees, for example.

That said, I submit that ultimately, when everything is said and done, and the facts of all things made known to all, we will recognize that the darkest moments of church history were caused by disobedience, not obedience, to the prophet.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

That said, I submit that ultimately, when everything is said and done, and the facts of all things made known to all, we will recognize that the darkest moments of church history were caused by disobedience, not obedience, to the prophet.

i dont know about this....

im thinking of the darkest moment to date in church history:

lying about polygamy/polyandry
post manifesto polygamy
kirkland bank problems
mountain meadows massacre
blacks and the priesthood
salamander letter fiasco

(ive said in past posts i think the churchs warts quite small and infrequent considering the large organization and rapid growth its experienced)

in every single one of these circumstances, the leadership of the church has been shrouded in levels of deceit, mistrust of the general membership, and in-quorum disagreement. i think the general membership of the church a very able and capable body of people, at times, to serve as a check and balance to the leadership. thats why i think brigham was so adamant about members questioning what is presented to them by the leaders. sometimes they are wrong. do i think etb is wrong in his opinions on communism? why yes i do. i think he has little credibility when it comes to talking about things that deal directly with political scholarship.

i think the principle of personal stewardship and making ourselves personal churches within the larger body of christ is what paul was teaching here.....

Romans 12:5

So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

as we perfect ourselves and are prophets unto our families we find out where we fit into the larger body of christ. i think the tent of the church is huge and it is up to us to find out where we fit under that tent.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

i think the general membership of the church a very able and capable body of people, at times, to serve as a check and balance to the leadership. thats why i think brigham was so adamant about members questioning what is presented to them by the leaders.

The problem with that is the church is not a democracy. The membership doesn't "check and balance" its leaders-- it sustains and obeys them. I think the reason Brigham Young wanted members to question what is presented to them is so they would understand the principles behind the doctrines and the rules. The danger is that in obedience to mere forms and patterns, we miss the big picture. I don't think Brigham meant that the people were supposed to keep him in line.

Originally Posted by fusnik11

as we perfect ourselves and are prophets unto our families we find out where we fit into the larger body of christ. i think the tent of the church is huge and it is up to us to find out where we fit under that tent.

I'll drink to that.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

I'm not certain that the city of Enoch practiced anything quite like the United Order. I think the Utopian environment was the result of righteousness, and their living of God's moral laws. I'm not certain that there was any sort of state sanctioned redistribution of wealth going on. I doubt there was any poor among them, but that was probably more the result of unrestrained charity than any official program to take from the rich and give to the poor.

You've just described the Law of Consecration and the United Order\ :wink: Any study of it's tenants would reveal that the City of Enoch COULD NOT have achieved exaltation without having first lived the LOC and the United Order ... that level of righteousness demands it.

[SteelBlue]

Late thoughts from SteelBlue:

-I agree that the LOC resembles socialism more than it does capitalism. The key to me is who is in charge and who is participating. This has already been expressed very well in this thread. Socialism would drive me crazy. I think I could try and live the LOC if I believed that everyone else was trying their best as well. But I'll be honest with you, I'd much rather I was never asked to do so. I'd much rather retire and spend my 401k on myself. :wink:

-ETB the apostle definitely said things re: politics that were strictly his opinion. I do not consider much of what he said about politics to have been inspired. I will say that I agree with him re: Communism being a worthless system. However, I do not think that Ike was a communist plant in a plan to subjugate the American people to Communism. I don't think the civil rights movement was part of a communist plot. I don't think George Wallace would have been a good president. My testimony of prophets was strengthened after studying a little bit about ETB in the David O. McKay book. Even though he had those strong political leanings that he was so vocal about, when he took on the mantle of President/Prophet he completely changed. He championed the book of Mormon and I believe, as most of you do, that he was a prophet of the Lord and telling us what the Lord wanted us to hear.

[Hazzard]

I think the reason Brigham Young wanted members to question what is presented to them is so they would understand the principles behind the doctrines and the rules.

I agree with this, but it may also be true that Brigham wanted members to question what is presented to them so they can recognize when their leaders are perhaps a little bit off the mark.

I think 99% of the time we would do well to follow our leaders with perfect exactness, but there are certain rare occasions when, because our leaders are fallible humans, we might be better off taking an alternative route.

[FMCoug]

The United Order was an IMPLEMENTATION of the Law of Consecration. There is no doctrine anywhere that I know of that says we will be living the United Order again.

Two thngs are clear:

1. Endowed members are already under covenant to live the Law of Consecration. Some do, some do not. There are many example given above of both. However, to make judgments on what that means is up to the Lord. For example, on my mission there was member who was very wealthy physician. He lived in a million dollar home .... but he also had offerred to pay the way to BYU for any kid in the ward who got in but could not afford it. That's right, a full ride given by an individual. Was he living the law of consecration or not? Beats me. But I'd guess better than some.


2. Someday (maybe not until the milennium), there will be another implementation of the Law of Consecration but we don't know what it will be like.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

2. Someday (maybe not until the milennium), there will be another implementation of the Law of Consecration but we don't know what it will be like.

I'm pretty sure I'm getting your house.

[Mormon Red Death]

I just had a thought. What if the way we generally look at the law of consecration is wrong? Generally you see the implementation of the law to be "The United Order". This is assumed to be the implementation used with the Nephites, and people of Enoch (or one like it). What if there implementation was totally different. For example, what if there implementation was complete unfettered capitalism? Where the work and ideas of a man is the distributor of wealth not a goverment or a church org. The tenets of capitalism are such that it rewards people who work the hard. Doesn't a perfect system from God seem to be one in which people are rewarded for the work they produce? Couldn't consecrating all your might mind and strength to the building of kingdom mean do your best to produce and sell a product on how the market dictates? I guess I could go on for days about the virtues of capitalism. But one thing is for sure its the fairest system out there.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I just had a thought. What if the way we generally look at the law of consecration is wrong? Generally you see the implementation of the law to be "The United Order". This is assumed to be the implementation used with the Nephites, and people of Enoch (or one like it). What if there implementation was totally different. For example, what if there implementation was complete unfettered capitalism? Where the work and ideas of a man is the distributor of wealth not a goverment or a church org. The tenets of capitalism are such that it rewards people who work the hard. Doesn't a perfect system from God seem to be one in which people are rewarded for the work they produce? Couldn't consecrating all your might mind and strength to the building of kingdom mean do your best to produce and sell a product on how the market dictates? I guess I could go on for days about the virtues of capitalism. But one thing is for sure its the fairest system out there.

The whole notion that it will be some form of socialism or capitalism is incorrect ... it will be niether of those systems because each of thos systems are a construct of man and his/her finite knowledge.