Law of consecration - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

All-American · 12-29-2005, 01:07 AM

Matter of fact, the law of consecration is intended to be voluntary. Entrance and exit from the system are both optional.

When members of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve have advocated in unmistakable terms that we "shun and eschew communism", and that it bears only "superficial relevance" to the law of consecration, you're on shaky ground saying otherwise.

Goatnapper'96 · 12-29-2005, 03:20 PM

This comment has its roots in the application of the law of consecration in the 19th century by the LDS Church. When the LOC was implemented, everyone donated to the Church all their assets and then the Church redistributed those assets as it saw fit. Some would call this a redistribution of wealth, and they would be correct. If not for a Shaking Quaker, name forgotten, getting all stingy it is likely that the entire bad idea that was moving New Englanders to the Missouri frontier to establish "Zion" might have been avoided. However, I am not convinced that this is the implementation model of the LOC that will will be used every time. There are other factors that led to this methodology. Further, I argue that the LOC is not based upon the goal of the redistribution of wealth, but the goal is the perfection of mankind and when the adherants strive for that goal a by product is the Christian desire to take care of those less fortunate. The law of stewardship is a smokescreen only inasmuch as "God owns all things." But history demonstrates that God will go a long way to allowing mankind to destroy that which he made mankind stewards before he steps in and alters the mankind chosen course of events.

However, one similarity of LOC that it shares with socialism is the centralization of disproportionate power in the hands of a few. This is not so much a result of LOC as it is that Christ's Kingdom is a theocracy. In mortality LOC will not work because it is desinged to operate within a theocratic socio-political system. If one looks at the "Celestial Laws" that mortals tried to live those laws present great opportunities for abuse. Celestial laws are not to be lived until mankind is prepared to live them and I think the historical results of both polygamy and LOC demonstrate that even at the top of the LDS Priesthood hierarchy, very few, if anybody, was prepared to live either law. At the levels of priesthood hierarchy that fusnik, non sequitar and myself will eternally wander those qualified to live Celestial Laws decreases dramatically from the almost zero at the top.

Iluvatar · 12-29-2005, 07:20 PM

I should probably stick to the sports threads, but, I just can't help myself!

I will never suffer myself or my family to live under anything even resembling the united order, the law of consecration, communism, socialism, or whatever we choose to call that fiasco that Joseph and his innitiates tried to establish (the only caveat being if Christ were to preside over it personally). Only a fool would!

I can't think of a single historical example where true communism/socialism (and please, don't try to convince me that the law of cosecration and the united order are different than their equally hideous atheistic brothers, they aren't) didn't quickly evolve into an oligarchy where abuse and tyranny reigned. I strongly suspect that the long lost "doctrines" of polygamy, blood atonement, ect. would become all the rage again in this sort of sytem. No thanks...

I covenanted to consecrate my time, energy, posessions, etc. to the building of the kingdom. I intend to give those things as I see fit, since they were, after all, gifted to me by the lord himself. I am the steward of my property, not the bretheren! I will continue to be the steward of whatever the lord sees fit to give me. I will never arbitrarily sign over any of my property to the church. If the church wants to use it, they can ask me to use it. I'll decide wether to gift it or not.

This said, there is very little that I would not willingly give if I felt the church and it's members were truly in need of it. We all have an obligation to take care of our fellow men. If we were all as generous as we coud and should be, there would be no need for anything even resembling the law of consecration. The poor would already be in good shape.

fusnik11 · 12-29-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

I should probably stick to the sports threads, but, I just can't help myself!

I will never suffer myself or my family to live under anything even resembling the united order, the law of consecration, communism, socialism, or whatever we choose to call that fiasco that Joseph and his innitiates tried to establish (the only caveat being if Christ were to preside over it personally). Only a fool would!

no please converse with us about the religious aspects that tie us together. the conversation here is very enlightening and although our views, differences, similarities are easily found through the reading of our individual posts the discussion here proves to be very fruitful....

i dont know personally how i would feel should the brethren request my property for the use of the church. i dont understand the loc as far as the redistribution of wealth is concerned. i have no problem with richer members giving more money to tithing, i have no problem with the church requesting additional time from those able to give, but i dont understand giving everything we have to make us an equal people.

are we not all created different with different size ceilings for a purpose? how does making us all have the same physical ceiling help us progress towards exaltation?

and i have changed my opinion....communism is the twin to the law of consecration as both serve the purpose of making everyone equal....

socialism should be the higher law we strive to live today by helping out those in need....

All-American · 12-29-2005, 07:45 PM

Three important things to remember:

1.) The law of consecration has worked before. The city of Enoch and the Nephites are two examples that we know about, and the city of Salem under Melchizedek is another likely candidate. We don't know but that there are more examples of successful implementation of the law of consecration and the united order.

2.) A president of the church, his counselors, and members of the quorum of the 12 have come out specifically against communism and warning members of the church not to confuse communism with the law of consecration. They have drawn the line and to state otherwise puts yourself on the opposite side of that line. Careful.

3.) The law of consecration is the Celestial law. Endowed members of the church have already covenanted to live that law, and that means living it now. This does not mean living under the United Order yet, but it does mean that our time, talents, and efforts should be devoted to the building of the kingdom of God, with an emphasis on the Kingdom of God's most basic unit, the family. I personally know several people for whom, if called upon, I would testify that they live this law to the fullest.

fusnik11 · 12-29-2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Three important things to remember:

1.) The law of consecration has worked before. The city of Enoch and the Nephites are two examples that we know about, and the city of Salem under Melchizedek is another likely candidate. We don't know but that there are more examples of successful implementation of the law of consecration and the united order.

2.) A president of the church, his counselors, and members of the quorum of the 12 have come out specifically against communism and warning members of the church not to confuse communism with the law of consecration. They have drawn the line and to state otherwise puts yourself on the opposite side of that line. Careful.

3.) The law of consecration is the Celestial law. Endowed members of the church have already covenanted to live that law, and that means living it now. This does not mean living under the United Order yet, but it does mean that our time, talents, and efforts should be devoted to the building of the kingdom of God, with an emphasis on the Kingdom of God's most basic unit, the family. I personally know several people for whom, if called upon, I would testify that they live this law to the fullest.

a few things to consider....

a. although it has worked a couple of times it hasnt had staying power. enoch was taken off the earth and the nephites were eventually consumed...

b. the president who warned against communism is also a right wing hack. so when it comes to things that deal with an ideal that is in direct conflict with his political leanings, i take his teachings as opinions and think he was wrong. the only difference between the loc and communism is one is ran by a church the other by a goverment, which if broken down, the church becomes essentially the goverment running the loc.....

c. as endowed members we promise to do certain things. consecrating our time and talents to the church means we are sealing our lives with the purpose of building gods kingdom. i think this is easily done without the redistribution of wealth.....

Iluvatar · 12-29-2005, 09:08 PM

I'm not certain that I would site The City of Enoch, the Nephites, or even the City of Salem under Mechezidek as historical certainties. Those would be dubious references at best. You might get away with it on this forum, but for obvious reasons it wouldn't fly elsewhere. I'll let it slide for the sake of discussion.

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.

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.

Otherwise, I refer to fusnik11's last post.

All-American · 12-29-2005, 09:21 PM

I agree on points a and c. Yes, the systems eventually broke down, but to say that they have never worked and can't work is demonstrably false. Also, redistribution of wealth is not currently a requirement of living the law of consecration.

As for point b, I would first of all caution your labeling Elder Benson as a right wing hack. You put yourself on shaky ground whenever you shrug off what a member of the quorum of the twelve says when he speaks in the name of the Lord.

Besides, he is not alone in saying it. In that talk previously cited was a statement signed by the first presidency stating that communism bears only superficial resemblance to the United Order. The first presidency (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay) called upon church members to shun and eschew communism, saying it is "incompatible with true Church Membership... and no faithful Church member can be a communist."

You may have noticed in times past that the brethren are careful to state when they give their own opinions and when they speak in the name of the church. President Hinckley, even after he was sustained as President, puts disclaimers on his publications. When they speak on the Lord's behalf, however, it's as good as a "thus saith the Lord."

non sequitur · 12-29-2005, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

As for point b, I would first of all caution your labeling Elder Benson as a right wing hack. You put yourself on shaky ground whenever you shrug off what a member of the quorum of the twelve says when he speaks in the name of the Lord.

Simply calling ETB a right-wing hack is being generous. The guy was an unashamed racist and hate-monger. Anyone who suggests that ETB was God's mouthpiece, owes God a serious apology.

Iluvatar · 12-29-2005, 09:42 PM

"As for point b, I would first of all caution your labeling Elder Benson as a right wing hack. You put yourself on shaky ground whenever you shrug off what a member of the quorum of the twelve says when he speaks in the name of the Lord."

I think you put yourself on much shakier ground when you believe what those in authority say without thought. More people have been killed, tortured and abused in the name of God (Christ, Allah, Pharoah, Zeus, take your pick) than any other. If you think we are/have been immune to this sort of thing, do a little homework.

[/quote]

12-29-2005, 03:20 PM	#22
Goatnapper'96 Recruiting Coordinator/Bosom Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,412	On the redistribution of wealth.... This comment has its roots in the application of the law of consecration in the 19th century by the LDS Church. When the LOC was implemented, everyone donated to the Church all their assets and then the Church redistributed those assets as it saw fit. Some would call this a redistribution of wealth, and they would be correct. If not for a Shaking Quaker, name forgotten, getting all stingy it is likely that the entire bad idea that was moving New Englanders to the Missouri frontier to establish "Zion" might have been avoided. However, I am not convinced that this is the implementation model of the LOC that will will be used every time. There are other factors that led to this methodology. Further, I argue that the LOC is not based upon the goal of the redistribution of wealth, but the goal is the perfection of mankind and when the adherants strive for that goal a by product is the Christian desire to take care of those less fortunate. The law of stewardship is a smokescreen only inasmuch as "God owns all things." But history demonstrates that God will go a long way to allowing mankind to destroy that which he made mankind stewards before he steps in and alters the mankind chosen course of events. However, one similarity of LOC that it shares with socialism is the centralization of disproportionate power in the hands of a few. This is not so much a result of LOC as it is that Christ's Kingdom is a theocracy. In mortality LOC will not work because it is desinged to operate within a theocratic socio-political system. If one looks at the "Celestial Laws" that mortals tried to live those laws present great opportunities for abuse. Celestial laws are not to be lived until mankind is prepared to live them and I think the historical results of both polygamy and LOC demonstrate that even at the top of the LDS Priesthood hierarchy, very few, if anybody, was prepared to live either law. At the levels of priesthood hierarchy that fusnik, non sequitar and myself will eternally wander those qualified to live Celestial Laws decreases dramatically from the almost zero at the top. __________________ She had a psychiatrist who said because I didn't trust the water system, the school system, the government, I was paranoid," he said. "I had a psychiatrist who said her psychiatrist was stupid."

12-29-2005, 07:20 PM	#23
Iluvatar Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 52	Law of consecration... I should probably stick to the sports threads, but, I just can't help myself! I will never suffer myself or my family to live under anything even resembling the united order, the law of consecration, communism, socialism, or whatever we choose to call that fiasco that Joseph and his innitiates tried to establish (the only caveat being if Christ were to preside over it personally). Only a fool would! I can't think of a single historical example where true communism/socialism (and please, don't try to convince me that the law of cosecration and the united order are different than their equally hideous atheistic brothers, they aren't) didn't quickly evolve into an oligarchy where abuse and tyranny reigned. I strongly suspect that the long lost "doctrines" of polygamy, blood atonement, ect. would become all the rage again in this sort of sytem. No thanks... I covenanted to consecrate my time, energy, posessions, etc. to the building of the kingdom. I intend to give those things as I see fit, since they were, after all, gifted to me by the lord himself. I am the steward of my property, not the bretheren! I will continue to be the steward of whatever the lord sees fit to give me. I will never arbitrarily sign over any of my property to the church. If the church wants to use it, they can ask me to use it. I'll decide wether to gift it or not. This said, there is very little that I would not willingly give if I felt the church and it's members were truly in need of it. We all have an obligation to take care of our fellow men. If we were all as generous as we coud and should be, there would be no need for anything even resembling the law of consecration. The poor would already be in good shape. __________________ \"What we do in life echoes in eternity\"

12-29-2005, 09:08 PM	#27
Iluvatar Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 52	I'm not certain that I would site The City of Enoch, the Nephites, or even the City of Salem under Mechezidek as historical certainties. Those would be dubious references at best. You might get away with it on this forum, but for obvious reasons it wouldn't fly elsewhere. I'll let it slide for the sake of discussion. 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. 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. Otherwise, I refer to fusnik11's last post. __________________ \"What we do in life echoes in eternity\"

12-29-2005, 09:42 PM	#30
Iluvatar Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 52	"As for point b, I would first of all caution your labeling Elder Benson as a right wing hack. You put yourself on shaky ground whenever you shrug off what a member of the quorum of the twelve says when he speaks in the name of the Lord." I think you put yourself on much shakier ground when you believe what those in authority say without thought. More people have been killed, tortured and abused in the name of God (Christ, Allah, Pharoah, Zeus, take your pick) than any other. If you think we are/have been immune to this sort of thing, do a little homework. [/quote] __________________ \"What we do in life echoes in eternity\"

12-29-2005, 01:07 AM	#21
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	Matter of fact, the law of consecration is intended to be voluntary. Entrance and exit from the system are both optional. When members of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve have advocated in unmistakable terms that we "shun and eschew communism", and that it bears only "superficial relevance" to the law of consecration, you're on shaky ground saying otherwise.

12-29-2005, 07:45 PM	#25
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	Three important things to remember: 1.) The law of consecration has worked before. The city of Enoch and the Nephites are two examples that we know about, and the city of Salem under Melchizedek is another likely candidate. We don't know but that there are more examples of successful implementation of the law of consecration and the united order. 2.) A president of the church, his counselors, and members of the quorum of the 12 have come out specifically against communism and warning members of the church not to confuse communism with the law of consecration. They have drawn the line and to state otherwise puts yourself on the opposite side of that line. Careful. 3.) The law of consecration is the Celestial law. Endowed members of the church have already covenanted to live that law, and that means living it now. This does not mean living under the United Order yet, but it does mean that our time, talents, and efforts should be devoted to the building of the kingdom of God, with an emphasis on the Kingdom of God's most basic unit, the family. I personally know several people for whom, if called upon, I would testify that they live this law to the fullest.

12-29-2005, 09:21 PM	#28
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	I agree on points a and c. Yes, the systems eventually broke down, but to say that they have never worked and can't work is demonstrably false. Also, redistribution of wealth is not currently a requirement of living the law of consecration. As for point b, I would first of all caution your labeling Elder Benson as a right wing hack. You put yourself on shaky ground whenever you shrug off what a member of the quorum of the twelve says when he speaks in the name of the Lord. Besides, he is not alone in saying it. In that talk previously cited was a statement signed by the first presidency stating that communism bears only superficial resemblance to the United Order. The first presidency (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay) called upon church members to shun and eschew communism, saying it is "incompatible with true Church Membership... and no faithful Church member can be a communist." You may have noticed in times past that the brethren are careful to state when they give their own opinions and when they speak in the name of the church. President Hinckley, even after he was sustained as President, puts disclaimers on his publications. When they speak on the Lord's behalf, however, it's as good as a "thus saith the Lord."