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.