Law of Consecration

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

Law of Consecration

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I haven't heard the "excess" thing before. My understanding is that you give it ALL and then what you NEED is given back to you.

You don't have any private property, so to speak.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

I really don't think about it because it's not a law we are asked to live at this time.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Temple-goers are under convenant, though.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm not sure about the private property thing. If what you need is given back to you, that's your property, isn't it? Until such time as you don't need it, of course.

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

Section 42
31 And inasmuch as ye ^aimpart of your ^bsubstance unto the ^cpoor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be ^dlaid before the ^ebishop of my church and his ^fcounselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and ^gset apart for that purpose.

32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the ^aconsecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made ^baccountable unto me, a ^csteward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and ^dfamily.

33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a ^aresidue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

As I said, I don't think much about this (but coco is right, we are under covenant). But when I read this, I see the words residue, own property, sufficient for himself and family, etc. That makes me think that we will own property and have excess to give.

Just wanting to know if any of you have more knowledge to share.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

Cocobeem wrote:

Temple-goers are under convenant, though.

True but we are not asked to live it right now. Perhaps in the future. I look at it kind of like plural marriage. I'll cross that river when I get to it and not worry too much about it now. biggrin

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

We're not asked to live it right now, but I think it's important that we know whether or not we COULD live it if we were asked next week. Are we really spiritually prepared to give everything to the church, trusting that we'll receive back what we need?

I always thought of the LoC when I saw older couples in huge houses, just the two of them rattling around in their retirement, while young couples with a bunch of kids squeezed into a tiny little cottage because that's all they could afford. If we lived the LoC, the house wealthy retirees would effectively "switch" houses with the young families who needed the space.

I once asked my mother if she could give up all her extra property if the Lord (via the bishop) asked for it. She said she didn't know.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

In my branch, granted we are not living the true form, but the degree to which every looks after, helps each other is getting closer to it than anything I have seen before. I really enjoy the closeness.

arbilad · Head Chef

The way it worked when the church practiced it earlier (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), was that you consecrated everything that you had to the Lord, then the church put the portion of that necessary to provide for you and your family under your stewardship. That is, if you owned 100 acres of land, and consecrated it, then the Bishop might determine that you only needed 20 acres for your own sustenance, and that he would give stewardship over the remaining 80 acres to four other families.
You were still responsible for and in charge of 20 acres. That's a huge difference, for example, from a communal farm or , where the farm belonged to the "everyone" (meaning the state). If those same 100 acres were turned into a communal farm, those same 100 acres would be worked by a certain number of workers, who would be paid a wage for their work. Those workers would not be responsible for the land. The only person who would feel any responsibility would be the guy who ran the farm, but since it's not his farm anyway, he's only really concerned with meeting arbitrary production quotas.
That's the beauty of the United Order. By giving someone stewardship over something, they feel responsible. You also give them the decision making ability over that thing. If the farmer with stewardship over 20 acres decides that he wants to use pesticide A instead of pesticide B, that's his decision because he's the steward of that land. Or he can choose to raise "Organic" produce if that's what he feels is best.

Organist · Senior Member

We are not under covenant to live the united order version of the law of consecration, but we are nevertheless under covenant to live the law of consecration. There is simply no formal, organized, church-run version of it today. We are each responsible for living it on our own. It is one of the last covenants made, and probably one of the toughest to live.

I can think of a few common ways that this is at least partially lived.
Some may live it by thinking, "I will give everything that is asked, if it is ever asked".
Some may live it by giving all their excess to Fast Offerings.
Some may donate their time and talents and training.

Does anyone really live it fully? I don't know.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Just so we're square that a "steward" is much different than an "owner"...
steward: a person who manages another's property or financial affairs; one who administers anything as the agent of another or others.

I look at plural marriage as "a slight possibility with no bearing on one's eternal salvation" and the LoC as "inevitable and necessary before admission to the CK" but maybe that's just me. There is no "future" implied in the temple covenant wording either. We accept it, or we do not.

It is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, isn't it?

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, when you look at it eternally, we own nothing. We are only stewards of whatever the Lord chooses to grant us. The United Order merely formalizes that and gives the Lord's earthly representative the ability to check up on your stewardship.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Organist wrote:
It is one of the last covenants made, and probably one of the toughest to live.

Thee last, as a matter of fact. And yes, if you can wrap your fallen mortal mind around this one, you're doing pretty darn well, I'd say.

Unless, of course, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain... then it's not much of a test...

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

I can say that I'm prepared and willing to live whatever law the Lord gives us but until that time comes, I won't know for sure. How many of the early saints went through heck and highwater to follow brother Joseph and then something small caused them to fall away. I hope and pray to stay faithful but until I'm faced with the actual situation, how will I know for sure?

arbilad · Head Chef

Well, we know that the Lord won't give us any temptation that we aren't capable of overcoming. So we know that we are capable of overcoming whatever trial of faith that we face. Whether we have overcome our fallen nature sufficiently to do so is another question. So, in short, we can, but will we?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

How would y'all feel if you were asked to consecrate your food storage, and half of it was given to a family that had gone bankrupt due to excessive debt?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Will they give me partial-stewardship in the four-wheelers and boats?

You know, the latest food storage publication/letter thingey *almost* made it sound like that is a plausible scenario.

-- Edited by Cocobeem at 15:46, 2008-03-25

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

bokbadok wrote:

How would y'all feel if you were asked to consecrate your food storage, and half of it was given to a family that had gone bankrupt due to excessive debt?

In a Consecration scenario, your family would have what they need, so what would be the big deal? If my family is provided for, then. . . yay! Especially if the economy was toast or the world around us was in turmoil. Working together as a community and making sure everyone is taken care of actually sounds pretty good to me.

Dyany · Senior Member

One of the nice things about consecration is it's not just about worldly goods. We also consecrate our time, talents, and everything the Lord has given us. That means that in bok's scenario a) you would know that the family was working hard to pull their share, and b) bankruptcy couldn't happen again, because the family, if living the law of consecration, would only be given what they needed, they wouldn't be able to go into excessive debt. If they went OUTSIDE the consecration and purchased goods on credit...well then, as I understand it they wouldn't be under the law of consecration anyway.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

As to Jen's thought of everyone having what they need so what's the big deal...

Now, I'm an unusually optimistic person. Just ask beefche. But all of a sudden, when someone else's wit and wisdom is in charge of my survival, I get a little twitch. What if the leader is depending on faulty information? What if he's not totally being guided by the Spirit? What if others have gotten screwed under his stewardship? What if he's in your face about it and you have a feeling to decline?

We're all fallen mortals here. Even Joseph didn't make the wisest decisions with Kirkland Bank and different things...

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Duke of Mirth wrote:
I hope and pray to stay faithful but until I'm faced with the actual situation, how will I know for sure?

What you do Jason is make the decision right now that whatever the prophet or your local leaders ask, you will do. I think it's that simple.

I think I'm ready. I hope my family is.

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

But what does the law look like? I've always imagined that we would live this after the coming of Christ, but there's no guarantee of that. Those endowed in the temple are under covenant. So what if at the next General Conference, Pres Monson announced it's in effect immediately?

I think bok brought up a good point. If we were living it while in the mortal realm under mortal men, we know some things are going to go wrong (and what a test of faith that would be). So, what would it look like? Does that mean that mirk would have to give up his 10 yr food storage to the church? Does that mean we could no longer enjoy concerts or plays or vacations?

arbilad · Head Chef

I imagine that life would be a lot more frugal under the United Order than many are used to, but I don't imagine that it would be without entertainment. After all, we're not mindless zombies, but sons and daughters of God with active intellects. You need some rest from work or daily routine in order to keep that intellect going.

Organist · Senior Member

Just my luck, I'll have spent the all my life working hard in school, service, and other activities, be poor through college, medical school (expensive), and residency, work hard to pay off my debts, and then the first year that I can start enjoying a higher salary (when I'm about 40 years old), they will start a formalized version of the law of consecration. Since I may still be single (girls aren't typically attracted to a large amount of debt and a man who has to work 80 hours a week), I'll have to share a little apartment with bunkbeds with several other single men (probably wierdos, cause they aren't yet married) and again live under missionary rules.

I really hope that isn't the grand plan, because that would be a huge disappointment.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Organist-

Whoooo... breathe.....

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I'm really not sure what it would "look like" in our day and age. It seems that the United Order type situations were all being built from the ground up, so there was no "unevenness" to deal with. Everyone was living it to begin with, before the Victorian mansions and the pre-fabs were all in the mix. Before we had the 8-series Beemers and the Chevy Cavaliers all in the same ward. Before we had those with ample food storage and those who thumb their noses at the idea. So, I'm really not sure. I think people were closer to being all "in the same boat" back when they lived it the last go 'round, but I could be mistaken. Likewise when they lived it in the BOM after Christ's coming, wasn't there a general rebuilding going on? Everyone was pooling together... after the great destruction, etc...

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

Organist--

Oooo, I need to wipe my eyes....

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

Cocobeem wrote:

I'm really not sure what it would "look like" in our day and age. It seems that the United Order type situations were all being built from the ground up, so there was no "unevenness" to deal with. Everyone was living it to begin with, before the Victorian mansions and the pre-fabs were all in the mix. Before we had the 8-series Beemers and the Chevy Cavaliers all in the same ward. Before we had those with ample food storage and those who thumb their noses at the idea. So, I'm really not sure. I think people were closer to being all "in the same boat" back when they lived it the last go 'round, but I could be mistaken. Likewise when they lived it in the BOM after Christ's coming, wasn't there a general rebuilding going on? Everyone was pooling together... after the great destruction, etc...

That's what I've always envisioned...some type of apocalyptic living or something. We're all just trying to survive.

But I don't know that's necessarily true. Even if we will only live it fully when Christ returns, who says it'll be complete devestation? Sure, we would have had some serious wars and destruction, but will everything be annihilated? Will we only be in a struggling to survive mode?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

See... I don't know. I just see a lot of problems come up when you tell empty nesters, "No, you really don't need that SUV that seats 8 people. We're giving that to Coco's family and you can have the '88 Honda Civic two-seater." You know what I mean? When things are fine, dandy and prosperous seems to be a very difficult time to instigate this law. Isn't it a law of "need"? (I have no idea... that just popped into my head.)

arbilad · Head Chef

Ultimately, I don't think that the Law of Consecration is a law that deprives, but rather one that provides. I'll expand on my thoughts later, but it gets down to this: possessions don't bring lasting happiness. Having enough is sufficient. So you aren't being deprived, but you are helping to provide for your fellow man.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

Mahonri wrote:

Duke of Mirth wrote:
I hope and pray to stay faithful but until I'm faced with the actual situation, how will I know for sure?

What you do Jason is make the decision right now that whatever the prophet or your local leaders ask, you will do. I think it's that simple.

I think I'm ready. I hope my family is.

Exactly, that's all I can do. biggrin

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I really liked Bok's question. Now there's a great challenge. :) That pretty much sums up why Consecration doesn't work... yet...

--Ray

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

bokbadok wrote:

How would y'all feel if you were asked to consecrate your food storage, and half of it was given to a family that had gone bankrupt due to excessive debt?

Under the Law of Consecration I would have all that I needed so my biggest issue of the "Eat Your Neighbors Food" myth would not be a problem. I have put up a small amount for charitable purposes and that is what would go to the willfully disobedient. Eventually I would get over calling them the willfully disobedient too.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Fresh, tenderized horsemeat at Mirk's place for the willfully disobedient. Get it while it lasts!

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:

It seems that the United Order type situations were all being built from the ground up, so there was no "unevenness" to deal with. Everyone was living it to begin with, before the Victorian mansions and the pre-fabs were all in the mix.

What do you mean, "living it to begin with?" Martin Harris sold his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. Of course there were rich and poor back then, relatively. One family had four horses and a new wagon, and anothe family had nothing. The level of technology has nothing to do with it.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:

I imagine that life would be a lot more frugal under the United Order than many are used to

This statement got me thinking - like some of you, I don't imagine that the church would re-call members to live the United Order unless economic conditions were extreme. Like as if the Mark was required to buy or sell in the mainstream marketplace. If that were the case, and luxury-coveting members had to choose between living a lower standard of living with the LoC, or taking the Mark (perhaps not realizing what it really was) to continue or achieve the desired lifestyle, perhaps sharing food storage with the unprepared won't be so much of an issue.

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

I don't imagine that the church would re-call members to live the United Order unless economic conditions were extreme.

Why? Just because it's difficult for mortal people to live? I'm not saying that we'll be asked to live it within the year, but if I'm under covenant for it, I need to be prepared to live it now (which I think we all agree). I guess I'm just not convinced it will be something done only in an extreme situation. But, I'm open to other's thoughts on it.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

bokbadok wrote:

What do you mean, "living it to begin with?" Martin Harris sold his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. Of course there were rich and poor back then, relatively. One family had four horses and a new wagon, and anothe family had nothing. The level of technology has nothing to do with it.

I really don't know. Maybe I don't see the extremes (back then) in people's economic situations that I see today. But I suppose to *them* it was just as trying as it would be to us. I also don't think technology has much to do with it - that's largely free. I'm posting at the public library right now. Okay, I'm really not, but -- what were we talking about?

Ooh... the mark of the beast as a catalyst for the LoC? Interesting...!

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

I sometimes look at the things the early saints sacrificed and worry that had I lived back then would I have been able to do what they did or stay faithful in the face of the challenges and sacrifices they made. I like to believe that if I was faced with the same challenges that I would rise up and be able to do it. I can commit to do it now but their hardships and challenges seemed so difficult that I wonder sometimes, especially as they did not know the outcome. I also get worried when you read church history and see so many of the one time great leaders of the church who fell away. I wonder sometimes how I could possibly have made it when so many of the general authorities of the time fell away.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Yes, and when you read their accounts, you really start to see things their way... Man! That Scratch is clever.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Who knows, though... It may be because we have become such a materialistic society, that it really will be easier for us to live it, because we have a much better view of just how stupid people are when they get everything they can possibly want.

Innovations in production have also changed the nature of possessions... in that many things are disposable. And thus, many of us may find Consecration refreshing like how liberating it feels to move your house and throw out all that old junk we've accumulated... but you never dared until you had to move. :)

--Ray

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Yeah, maybe... I think we're just so far from living a "sufficient for our needs" lifestyle, that it's really gonna get ugly unless we have some big trials of the physical sort to lead us off.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

So do you imagine life under the law of consecration as living with nothing?

nitasmile · Senior Member

It does seem like the law of consecration means less yet I respect the idea of helping all.

I do think there are chances to serve/sacrifice as preparation that I haven't been willing to do.

Example about 9 years ago I was in a ward in which a couple who seemed poor had adopted or was in process of adopting two kids. I think this couple may have been new converts, I met them when on exchange w/the sister missionaries. I don't recall all the details. So this couple asked or someone asked on their behalf (via an announcement in ward bulletin) the ward if someone would be willing to trade/exchange their passenger car for the older pickup truck this couple had, in order that they would have appropriate transportation for these children.

I didn't trade my car, I didn't want a old pickup- my car appeared in much better condition.
I hope that couple eventually got the needed car.

But I think in consecration, someone would have taken my car and given it to them, since I was single.

Organist · Senior Member

The Lord described the United Order as follows:

D&C 104: 16 "But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

If you are one of the rich, then you may feel that you are living with "nothing" after the Lord gets done with you.

Dyany · Senior Member

As long as the law of consecration means that those with too many children/who can't care for their children get to give them to me, then I'm fine with it. :P

Organist · Senior Member

It could happen:

Isaiah 54:1 "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord."

-- Edited by Organist at 19:27, 2008-03-29

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

But wealth is relative. What we consider poverty in this country is luxury in other nations. I think ultimately when it gets going we will all marvel at just how wealthy we all are, because of how freely we exchange our wealth. What we never dreamed possible will be attainable.

What we won't have is the pride that comes with wealth. The idea that one is better than another for having more or less.

We will have our needs met.

I honestly think that many who are wealthy are burdened by that wealth, because it is more than they need, and yet they don't know how give it away without ruining others. I believe this is precisely the problem our nation faces when we give huge amounts of money to poverty stricken countries.

--Ray