Law of Consecration vs. Socialism

[a-train]

Communism may be inherently unchristian by your definitions, but that doesn't mean it is inherently atheist.

No, Communism by definition is not atheistic itself. There may indeed be even Christians who believe in God but reject any notion of stewardship. There have been so-called "Christians" who sought to murder those who would not conform to their religion.

I am speaking from my point of view as a Mormon, as a believer in the right to property granted a man by his Creator. And also as a classical liberalist, like the Framers who wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is from this point of view that I say the work of compulsion is godless whether the perpetrators are atheists or not.

No matter how righteous and noble a given activity may be, if a man is forced to engage in it, that work of compulsion is ungodly no matter the estimation of God in the mind the forcer. I understand that such a statement comes from an LDS point of view and that a Christian Communist may indeed exist, but just because he makes mention of Jesus, his actions of compulsion are no more Christian than acts we could otherwise also call atheist.

There can be no other implementation of socialism than compulsion, otherwise, it is no longer socialism. If every man in the system is willing to give what he gives to the common stock and offers his possessions in a system that honor's his right to property, not being compelled against his will at any time, and reserving his right to withhold his property, it is no longer socialism. Socialism by definition removes ownership rights, but does not necessarily have to remove property itself. In a socialist system, a man may have many articles under his control, but he does not have the right to retain that control.

When permission by democratic vote is necessary for a man to use natural resources, then the availability of synagogues, sanctuaries, temples, sacred vestments and symbols, books, and all the various items associated with a given religious practice and lifestyle can only be obtained by that vote. This is problematic at best when trying to join religious freedom with Communism. The outcome is therefore only a freedom of religion within a granted scope of democratic policy.

It is perhaps arguable that even our Republic has limits on the practice of religion, but the options are certainly going to be vastly greater in a society that respects the right of property than under Communism. Indeed this makes Communism less attractive to practicers of religion than to atheists.

Thus it is acknowledged that Communism isn't by definition an atheistic system, but a Jeffersonian system of government isn't by definition one that believes in God. The right of property can be respected by atheists, albeit the source of that right may be understood differently.

-a-train

Edited September 9, 2008 by a-train

[DigitalShadow]

No, Communism by definition is not atheistic itself. There may indeed be even Christians who believe in God but reject any notion of stewardship. There have been so-called "Christians" who sought to murder those who would not conform to their religion.

I am speaking from my point of view as a Mormon, as a believer in the right to property granted a man by his Creator. And also as a classical liberalist, like the Framers who wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is from this point of view that I say the work of compulsion is godless whether the perpetrators are atheists or not.

No matter how righteous and noble a given activity may be, if a man is forced to engage in it, that work of compulsion is ungodly no matter the estimation of God in the mind the forcer. I understand that such a statement comes from an LDS point of view and that a Christian Communist may indeed exist, but just because he makes mention of Jesus, his actions of compulsion are no more Christian than acts we could otherwise also call atheist.

There can be no other implementation of socialism than compulsion, otherwise, it is no longer socialism. If every man in the system is willing to give what he gives to the common stock and offers his possessions in a system that honor's his right to property, not being compelled against his will at any time, and reserving his right to withhold his property, it is no longer socialism. Socialism by definition removes ownership rights, but does not necessarily have to remove property itself. In a socialist system, a man may have many articles under his control, but he does not have the right to retain that control.

When permission by democratic vote is necessary for a man to use natural resources, then the availability of synagogues, sanctuaries, temples, sacred vestments and symbols, books, and all the various items associated with a given religious practice and lifestyle can only be obtained by that vote. This is problematic at best when trying to join religious freedom with Communism. The outcome is therefore only a freedom of religion within a granted scope of democratic policy.

It is perhaps arguable that even our Republic has limits on the practice of religion, but the options are certainly going to be vastly greater in a society that respects the right of property than under Communism. Indeed this makes Communism less attractive to practicers of religion than to atheists.

Thus it is acknowledged that Communism isn't by definition an atheistic system, but a Jeffersonian system of government isn't by definition one that believes in God. The right of property can be respected by atheists, albeit the source of that right may be understood differently.

-a-train

I don't disagree with anything you said there, and I rather enjoyed that post. I would still like to emphasize though, that I have heard many people (particularly conservatives) who are very quick to call an idea "socialist" for the express purpose of then calling it evil through that association. Not that it is always an invalid comparison, but I really don't think many people understand the implications of what they are saying and I am incredibly tired of hearing the word thrown around in American politics as a generic insult to the left.

[Vort]

Law of consecration != united order

Let me repeat that.

Law of consecration != united order

We do not live the united order. It may never be restored, or it may be, but at this point in time it is merely an historical curiosity.

We do live the law of consecration, today, right now.

Let me repeat that, with emphasis.

We do live the law of consecration, today, right now.

It is a mystery to me why so many Mormons fail to understand this simple, basic, obvious truth. We live the law of consecration NOW, or at least we are supposed to.

Many early Saints confused the law of chastity with polygamy, thinking they were the same thing. When polygamy was done away with, there may have been some who thought the law of chastity was being abolished. But of course, that's nonsense. The law of chastity is not polygamy, any more than the law of consecration is the united order.

Dedicating all we have and are to God's kingdom and work: law of consecration.

Deeding over our property to the bishop: united order.

See the difference?

The proper subject title for this thread should be: United order vs. socialism

Asking how the "law of consecration" differs from "socialism" when what you really mean is how the "united order" differs from "socialism"

is like asking

how the "law of chastity" differs from "group sex" when what you really mean is how "polygamy" differs from "group sex".

I don't actually expect this will do any good. Those who insist on equating the law of consecration with the united order will continue to do so, and will continue to insist that we don't live the law of consecration today. Which is utter nonsense and false doctrine, but hey, what can I do? I'm just one anonymous guy on the internet, powerless in the face of mass ignornace. Poor me.

[a-train]

Dedicating all we have and are to God's kingdom and work: law of consecration.

Deeding over our property to the bishop: united order.

So I (and everyone else) can understand with certainty, property was actually deeded to the United Order right? Not the Bishop himself, correct?

Also, there is nothing preventing LDS families from doing that. In fact, many non-LDS families do it. I plan to do it with my kids so they don't have to take out loans for big purchases like cars and houses.

-a-train

[Vort]

So I (and everyone else) can understand with certainty, property was actually deeded to the United Order right? Not the Bishop himself, correct?

I believe this is correct. The bishop is the agent for the order, hence the shorthand of "deeding over to the bishop". In fact, it was the order itself that received the goods. The bishop was merely the steward over the order's belongings, or more precisely, the one in charge of apportioning out the stewardships.

Also, there is nothing preventing LDS families from doing that. In fact, many non-LDS families do it. I plan to do it with my kids so they don't have to take out loans for big purchases like cars and houses.

Sure, this can be done. You can even call it a "united order", if you like. But it is not the law of consecration unless done under the auspices of the kingdom of God.

On the other hand, paying your tithing, fulfilling your calling, and giving any amount or doing any job requested by your bishop is living the law of consecration, right now, today.

[rameumptom]

I believe the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to be terrestrial-level documents. They are much better than many other political theories that tend toward the telestial.

However, there is only ONE celestial politick. That is the Law of Consecration. Everything else pales in comparison. There is no private property in the LoC. There is only stewardship over that which is assigned to an individual/family. Private property suggests one can do with the property and any proceeds from that property as one sees fit. Stewardship implies that one is limited in his power over any property and how it is to be used, with the intent that profits are returned to the storehouse to benefit the whole.

Of course, this is a voluntary system and is not coerced upon anyone. It would not work very well in a telestial or terrestrial setting with a telestial or terrestrial people.

[a-train]

Private property suggests one can do with the property and any proceeds from that property as one sees fit. Stewardship implies that one is limited in his power over any property and how it is to be used, with the intent that profits are returned to the storehouse to benefit the whole.

Are you suggesting that Celestial Beings living the fullness of the Law of Consecration do not have agency? I understand you say that the system is voluntary, but if one cannot do as he sees fit with his stewardship, does he really have his agency?

-a-train

[richlittell]

I think too many LDS cling to their belief in property as some inalienable right because we are told the founders of our country were men inspired by God. But they were men inspired for their times according to the hearts of the people. In fact, this quote from the declaration of independence:

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Had initially been written by Jefferson as:

"... that among these are life, liberty and property"

And that was a hotly debated topic. I think it was an inspired change.

What makes our glorious Constitution unique is that our founders had no misconception about utopian societies. This being impossible, theirs' was a practical approach to government.

In fact, they wrote the Constitution specifically for a wicked people based on the fact that human nature is greedy and seeks for personal power and gain at the expense of others, that is why they built into the Constitution the voice of the people through their rights to vote, and more specifically, the balance of powers so that no one man or group of men could usurp their Constitutional appointment.

My point is that personal property, just like money, is a fiction created by man, not God. We give 10% to the church, but it is not really ours to give, it is a test to see if we truly understand that all things are God's from the beginning, and we are all just stewards. Can anyone really "own" land? there is not a piece of "owned" property in this world that was not, at least initially, first gained by conquest (don't think so? ask an American Indian). I never new conquest to be a righteous principle.

Setting aside communism, for the moment, what distinguishes the United Order or what might be referred to as the full/complete law of Consecration from Marxism, socialism, philospher-king governments or any other government are the hearts of the people. If a righteous people practiced socialsim, or any other form of Governement it would work. Any one remember King Mosiah, a monarchy?

Communism would work too but we would have to take out the anti-religious nature and the fact that it would be achieved by revolution (which, by the way was a Leninnist position, not Marxist, Marxism was first and foremost, an economic system--based on the utopian assumption that man would be at least unselfish enough to administer the system faithfully)

Now I'm not siding with communism, Marxism, or socialism, but just bear in mind that all systems not from God are manufactured by man-- whether based on individual or group property.

Imagine this conversation between a legislative hall full of righteous people and let's say it was a group of people who had just been converted to the church and their system of government was a socialist or even communist society.

"Okay, what are we going to do with Marion's big castle on the hill, Mark?"

"Well, I don't want it, I mean, I don't need it, there are plenty of others who might need it."

"Joe? Want it?"

"Of course I don't want it, I only have a family of four, what would I do with such a castle?"

"Susan?"

"I move that we make the castle into a lodging house for the destitute or sell it and tear it down and put it up for sell in amounts that anyone can afford it."

"I like the idea of a lodging house, it's quicker, easier, and we can get some of these destitute people in there right away."

"Move to vote."

[ voted; proposition accepted]

[P.S. After twenty years, because the people living in it were also righteous, the Castle had NOT been run into the ground. The grounds had been improved upon and the people voted that the back lot be devoted to a factory which would employ the less fortunate in making pottery ]

That's my take on government systems verses the United Order. We as a people have never been righteous enough to live it. And we are not today.

It all comes down to the fact that the United Order/law of Consectration is based on pure, true, and full charity in their hearts of the people.

Edited September 10, 2008 by richlittell

[Vort]

However, there is only ONE celestial politick. That is the Law of Consecration. Everything else pales in comparison. There is no private property in the LoC. There is only stewardship over that which is assigned to an individual/family.

This is incorrect. We live the law of consecration today, and we also own private property today.

If you really mean (sigh) the united order, then I believe that this is still incorrect. Under the united order, people were deeded back ownership of property to care for themselves, then given stewardship over other properties to benefit the order.

[threepercent]

I think too many LDS cling to their belief in property as some inalienable right because we are told the founders of our country were men inspired by God.

Actualy I was too busy being bitter and clinging to my guns and religion.

MY belief in property comes from clinging to the idea of freedom. And it is part of the stewardship model.

its about control, and whomever controls something is by default the owner. you don't eliminate property rights by having them communal, you just transfer them from individuals to a new owner. Someone still has to have 'final say" or control. it may be a group or an appointed individual, but that new entity is the new owner.

now there are a few things I must have to have freedom.

1. control over my own body. if I control your body you are my slave. If I control your labor you are a slave, if i control the output of your labor it is the same as controlling your labor, you are still a slave.

2. sufficient control over resources to provide the necessities of life. If I control all the resources, you are a surf, totally dependent on me for life, I control you by withholding food, clothing, shelter.

I can do this through force or fraud, its the same result. We currently serve under a combined force and fraud system. Under a balanced force and fraud system, most people will never realize they are slaves. we are moving out of that state into a unbalanced system where force is the primary methodology.

Cleon Skousen said it best when he said what we need, and have never figured out, is a equitable distribution of property rights system, for earthly government.

also, Christ is the OWNER of this land, and he has said we will be free of bondage if we serve Him, because he will never exercise unrighteous dominion to the least degree over us, and will grant us our freedom, but note it is still conditional, showing who is the real owner.

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

also note, we are in bondage, wonder why?

[rameumptom]

This is incorrect. We live the law of consecration today, and we also own private property today.

If you really mean (sigh) the united order, then I believe that this is still incorrect. Under the united order, people were deeded back ownership of property to care for themselves, then given stewardship over other properties to benefit the order.

You are partially correct. While it is called private property, it really does not work in the same sense as we consider private property today.

D&C 42 tells us:

30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set 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 consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

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 residue 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.

34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;

IOW, everything basically is deeded over to the Church, and then a stewardship is returned. Yet, of this stewardship, any excess gets placed into the storehouse, NOT in the individual's own pocket.

The view is that the Lord owns everything, and allots to us our personal stewardship. While some may view this as private property, it is very different than the capitalist view of private property.

[rameumptom]

Oh, and we do NOT live the Law of Consecration today. We live the law of Tithing, a terrestrial law. The Law of Consecration was rescinded. Our current PH/RS manual, in the introduction states:

Teachings for Our Day

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading).

None of us has been asked to deed all we have to the storehouse, and then have our portion/stewardship returned to us. This is how the Law of Consecration (and perhaps the United Order or other forms of LoC) will operate. So, before you "sigh" again, perhaps you should spend a little time studying the actual doctrine, rather than some incorrect form that is continually discussed by LDS capitalists. I'd also suggest a reading of Nibley's Approaching Zion for a better understanding of consecration.

[rameumptom]

Are you suggesting that Celestial Beings living the fullness of the Law of Consecration do not have agency? I understand you say that the system is voluntary, but if one cannot do as he sees fit with his stewardship, does he really have his agency?

-a-train

To be a Celestial being means the individual has chosen through his/her own agency to fully follow God's will. To do otherwise would mean the person no longer is fit for the Celestial realm, and would be relegated to a lower kingdom.

Through their choices and agency, they have chosen to be full partners with God and Christ in consecration of all things. In the Brigham Young PH/RS manual, it teaches that there are no laws in the Celestial Kingdom, or at least none have to be enumerated and commanded, because everyone there perfectly lives god-like existence. Only the lower kingdoms require commandments and expectations of obedience, with the idea that a being who will not live a celestial law must dwell elsewhere, and so with a telestial or terrestrial law (D&C 88).

A person can do as he sees fit with his stewarship, insofar as he is following God's will. Whether I plant corn or beets is probably immaterial to God. Whether I squander the profits from my plantings, or give the excess to the storehouse, is another thing.

[Moksha]

I think what the advocates are pointing out, is that those Christians should abandon any concept of doing good for their fellow beings, and embrace this new reality that for the natural man, embracing greed and looking out for only themselves and their family is paramount. Making social compacts to look after the general welfare of all is contrary to the hopes and desires of the natural man.

So you seem to be saying that the God seeking man is able to enter into social compacts to help promote the general welfare of all and not hold to the natural inclination to care only for his own immediate tribe. So how does one wishing to be a God seeking man break out of the bonds of conservatism that bind him to his baser self? Is it through living the law of consecration with a generous heart to all, even those outside of his immediate tribe?

[Vort]

Oh, and we do NOT live the Law of Consecration today. We live the law of Tithing, a terrestrial law. The Law of Consecration was rescinded.

This is untrue. The law of consecration was not and cannot be "rescinded", any more than the law of chastity can be "rescinded". It's an eternal law.

Our current PH/RS manual, in the introduction states:

Teachings for Our Day

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading).

This is an error. If you read the heading to Section 119, it makes it clear that the covenant was rescinded by which those who had entered into it had bound themselves together to the particular exercise of the law in conjunction with "stewardship of property". This is much different from the law being rescinded, which does not even make sense. The full quote from the introduction (which, of course, is not scripture), is as follows:

"The Lord had previously given to the Church the law of consecration and stewardship of property, which members (chiefly the leading elders) entered into by a covenant that was to be everlasting. Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord withdrew it for a time, and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church."

What is the antecedent to "it"? It is either (1) "the law of consecration and stewardship of property" or (2) "a covenant that was to be everlasting". If (1), that simply says that the particular exercise of the law of consecration (e.g. "stewardship of property") was withdrawn for a time. If (2), the law of consecration is not even involved.

None of us has been asked to deed all we have to the storehouse, and then have our portion/stewardship returned to us.

No. Rather, we have already voluntarily agreed that all we have already is dedicated to the kingdom of God. That means right now, not at some future nebulous time.

This is how the Law of Consecration (and perhaps the United Order or other forms of LoC) will operate.

No. The law of consecration operates by an individual consecrating by covenant his goods and efforts to the kingdom of God. That is the law of consecration. The so-called "united order" was not a "form" of the law of consecration, it was a particular method of practice. (This is perhaps a semantic point, so let me ask: Do you consider polygamy to be a "form" of the law of chastity? If so, then perhaps it makes sense for you to call the united order a "form" of the law of consecration. I disagree with that usage, but as long as you're consistent in it, I won't quibble too much.)

So, before you "sigh" again, perhaps you should spend a little time studying the actual doctrine, rather than some incorrect form that is continually discussed by LDS capitalists.

Well, that's a rather sweeping supposition. Who are these "LDS capitalists"? Since every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve in this dispensation has lived under American law, can I safely assume that they have all been "LDS capitalists"? If not, then what exactly to you mean?

My understanding of the law of consecration comes from an extensive study of our doctrines, primarily as discussed in the Doctrine and Covenants. You ought perhaps not to make such false assumptions and assertions.

I'd also suggest a reading of Nibley's Approaching Zion for a better understanding of consecration.

Suggest away. I may be wrong, but I suspect I have read as much Nibley as you, and perhaps more. However that may be, Nibley, a brilliant scholar and insightful man, was not a source of LDS doctrine, merely an exponent.

[a-train]

Approaching Zion is a great book. The parable of the student is great, I liked that. I also like the debunking of the old adage: 'There is no free lunch.'

In a free society, an individual is allowed to serve mammon and seek worldly pursuits all he wishes. However, the same individual is also just as free to consecrate all his efforts to God according to his own conscience. But under Communism, a man cannot do this, he is not allowed any right of property to so consecrate.

Certainly the 'Mormon Capitalists' do not somehow disacknowledge that God owns all things, that we are only stewards on this earth. How can we be stewards if we have no right to officiate in our stewardship?

Can the servant with five talents turn them to the money changers and give his master ten when the property is taken from him? How about when his market decisions are made for him? If he is not free to invest as he sees fit, does he have any chance of a good reward when his master arrives? His outcome will be the same as the man with one talent, for all of them will be forced to do the same.

Consecration and stewardship cannot live under Communism, and Communism cannot exist where men have their stewardship.

-a-train

[rameumptom]

This is untrue. The law of consecration was not and cannot be "rescinded", any more than the law of chastity can be "rescinded". It's an eternal law.

This is an error. If you read the heading to Section 119, it makes it clear that the covenant was rescinded by which those who had entered into it had bound themselves together to the particular exercise of the law in conjunction with "stewardship of property". This is much different from the law being rescinded, which does not even make sense. The full quote from the introduction (which, of course, is not scripture), is as follows:

(quoted).....

Suggest away. I may be wrong, but I suspect I have read as much Nibley as you, and perhaps more. However that may be, Nibley, a brilliant scholar and insightful man, was not a source of LDS doctrine, merely an exponent.

I quoted from the current LDS PH/RS manual, and you say it is in error? Perhaps you should rethink that statement, as it is the currently held belief of the Brethren, otherwise that statement would not have found its way into today's manual. It is not taught in the JS manual because we do not live it. It was rescinded due to the sins of the members, and replaced by the Law of Tithing (terrestrial law).

Once again, from the manual:

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it

(emphasis mine).

I was critical of LDS capitalists, or rather capitalists who are LDS, who believe in personal property and believe that the goal in life is: he who dies with the most toys, wins. Nibley was very concerned about this attitude, including regarding his grandfather, Charles Nibley's actions. Charles Nibley, Presiding Bishop, was sent east to procure loans for the Hotel Utah. He returned with the money in short term loans. The Prophet, Joseph F. Smith, asked him how this was to be paid off in such a short period of time. Bishop Nibley responded that they'd place a bar in the basement, and have the loans paid off within just a few years. President Smith hit the roof, but had no choice, as the loans agreements were already made. A bar was placed in the Hotel Utah basement, and remained until the loans were paid off, then removed.

This attitude of capitalism as a celestial thing is bunk. It can either be terrestrial or telestial, depending upon how it is implemented by the individual or organization. China and Russia are implementing capitalism, and no one can convince me that their form is beneficial in the long run.

The US Constitution was written by agrarians and gentlemen, not greedy capitalists. Democratic views came about later under Jackson, Buchanan and others, who pushed the idea of a non-gentry leadership. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were not looking at economic issues as their first and foremost goal. It was rather secondary or tertiary, at best. Issues of religion, speech and press were established in the First Amendment for a reason. The Commerce Department came about in 1903, not in 1781!

The original LDS doctrinal views of the Constitution are based upon this earlier reading and view of the Constitution, not the later Jacksonian reading. And it especially is not based upon the reading given by 19th century robber barons.

Now, are all LDS capitalists like this? Of course not. John Huntsman has shown himself to be a very good steward of his wealth. Many others, as well. But let's not pretend we are consecrating our wealth - we are not. Most of us fail miserably at consecrating our time and talents.

I agree that Nibley is not a source of doctrine, but he is a source of intelligent understanding and explication of the scriptures. His books are printed/reprinted by the Maxwell Institute. How many of your books have been printed by a Church organization? I know that none of mine have been, and so I tend to give good consideration to his spiritual and intellectual genius (as do most LDS scholars).

[Vort]

I quoted from the current LDS PH/RS manual, and you say it is in error?

If it says an eternal law has been rescinded? Yep.

Perhaps you should rethink that statement

Perhaps.

as it is the currently held belief of the Brethren, otherwise that statement would not have found its way into today's manual.

Non sequitur. I can show you many errors, even in our own scriptural headings. (Or do you believe that the Nephites had coinage?) LDS doctrine is not defined by whatever has been found at any given time in manuals, or else you would have to agree that our premortal selves were incapable of feeling spiritual joy or pain, as was explicitly taught in the missionary discussions I had to memorize word for word and that had been approved by the First Presidency.

It is not taught in the JS manual because we do not live it.

Perhaps you don't live it, but if you have been through the temple, you should, and you are in violation of your covenants.

It was rescinded due to the sins of the members, and replaced by the Law of Tithing (terrestrial law).

What you are saying is equivalent to saying, "The law of chastity was rescinded because the members could not live polygamy, and was replaced by monogamy."

Once again, from the manual: (emphasis mine).

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it

I have helped you out by placing the emphasis in a more appropriate position.

I was critical of LDS capitalists, or rather capitalists who are LDS, who believe in personal property and believe that the goal in life is: he who dies with the most toys, wins.

I am not familiar with such people, though I'm sure some of them must exist. They seem to be an area of special concern for you.

Now, are all LDS capitalists like this? Of course not. John Huntsman has shown himself to be a very good steward of his wealth. Many others, as well. But let's not pretend we are consecrating our wealth - we are not.

Again, you ought to speak only for yourself.

Most of us fail miserably at consecrating our time and talents.

Probably true, yet we are under covenant to consecrate them -- as well as our money -- to the kingdom. That's a covenant we live under now, not held in reserve for some future moment.

I agree that Nibley is not a source of doctrine, but he is a source of intelligent understanding and explication of the scriptures. His books are printed/reprinted by the Maxwell Institute. How many of your books have been printed by a Church organization?

Ah, so that's it. Unless I have published as many books as Nibley, my opinion doesn't count for as much as his, and my doctrinal insights are by definition inferior. (At least by Rameumptom's definition.) Very well. I've made my opinion known; ignore it as you see fit, secure in the knowledge that my published list of works pales in comparison to Nibley.

[rameumptom]

While consecration is an eternal law, in that it is lived in the celestial kingdom, you are correct. However, it has been withdrawn from the Church. In the temple, we agree not to live the law of consecration, but to accept it. The day will come when that will change, and we will all covenant to actually live it. But that day is not now. And this discussion has been about private property, and so the comment about consecrated stewardship of private property applies.

I personally accept the current teachings and instructions given in the modern manual than a heading written in 1980 in the D&C. And no, I do not accept the concept of coinage in the BoM. Once again, I accept current teachings over dead ones found in headings. The headings for the scriptures are almost 30 years old and in need of a major overhaul. But the instructions given in the JS manual are current and approved by the current Brethren. I'd say that should answer whether it has been withdrawn or not - at least for most members.

[threepercent]

both of you are correct.

Laws cannot be rescinded, laws are eternal, but there are levels of law:

6 All kingdoms have a law given;

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

so the law was rescinded in the sense that we chose a lesser or lower law, but not as the sense that the law was "off the books".

and we are still subject to all Gods Laws, in fact this is what we will face at the judgment day:

From the index of D&C:

under law

kingdom of glory man inherits will be determined by level of law he abides.

so, no you dont have to live the LOC now, but you dont have to go to heaven either.

[Vort]

While consecration is an eternal law, in that it is lived in the celestial kingdom, you are correct. However, it has been withdrawn from the Church. In the temple, we agree not to live the law of consecration, but to accept it. The day will come when that will change, and we will all covenant to actually live it. But that day is not now.

I truly welcome you to your opinion and to ignore mine. I have no illusions about my own inerrancy or that you (or anyone else) should listen to my take on things.

However, your statement above is false. The covenant we make in the temple is unmistakable. We covenant to consecrate ourselves, our time, and our possessions. That's the covenant. Nothing there about "accepting but not living" the covenant.

If you want to argue that, somehow, the covenant we make in the temple is not valid, or is not enforced, or is not applicable, go right ahead. But you cannot truthfully say that we don't make the covenant. We do. We covenant to consecrate our lives to God. Not tomorrow, not in the eternities, not when the bishop gets around to asking us one day. Right now.

[StephenPG]

The covenant is in force in our lives as soon as we sustain it but while we strive to live by it the atonement of our savior is there to assist even the weakest of church members.

[abqfriend]

Perhaps there is a continum between being totally for God--I am not--otherwise I would be sinless

---and the most corrupt form of socialism defined by some as pure communism.

Is all socialism bad?

There is much difference between Russia/China and North Korea on the communism side-as one example of degrees of pure communism/socialism.

Some countries have a more socialist government -such as Sweden and Denmark and now Spain-but they are quite different than North Korea.

-Carol (a Catholic)

I'd love to discuss the differences, and why one is ordained of God, while the other is spawned of Satan. Is this neutral enough to NOT get closed?

[Avrham]

Hello I was told that Socialism is about Government/State regulations and the State versus the individual

Communism is about group(family/tribe)and the needs of the group wellbeng/economy for survival

From my understanding the Law of Consecration is about giving all to God completely without regards to self wether it was property/time

I think that Communism would be the closes to the Law of Consecration from my understanding of Communism and that individuals contribute to the greater good of the community just reading about in Moses7-18 and concept of Zion where Saints live together

and Corinthian1 12-27/28 working for the purpose of Christ:)

[aliasgeorge]

I am amazed by some of your comments on here. First, let us remember what the war in heaven was over--agency. Satan's plan mimicked the plan of our Heavenly father, but personal agency was removed. This is the difference between Socialism and the united order--agency. In a socialistic government, one doesn't choose to give their excess, but rather have their goods taken from them. No choice lies with the individual. In the united order, people make their own choices as to what their level of need is, and then they give the excess because they choose to. As such under the united order, people become good people because they choose to be good people. Under socialism, people do not become better people, but rather they lose incentive to work hard, and lose all incentive to be charitable--becuase the government is doing all that. Rather than choosing to help those in need, they are incentivized to hold on and hide all that they have. Socialism breeds a totally different individual than the united order does. Socialism removes agency, and the united order relies on it. As such, socialism is compulsion, united order grants choice. And because agency is alive and well under the united order, when people are greedy it doesn't work (as exemplified by the early saints).

Another point, the law of consecration is not the same thing as the united order. The united order was the practical implementation of the law of consecration in the early days of the church. This united order is no longer practiced, but the law of consecration was never rescinded. Any endowed individual knows that they have promised to live the law of consecration. Do not fool yourselves into believing that it no longer applies to you. You covenanted to obey it. But how it should be applied in our lives without the united order is a totally different discussion.