Law of Consecration vs. Socialism


Prodigal_Son
 Share

Recommended Posts

For those who want to hear what a prophet of God has to say about it, here we go:

A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion

EZRA TAFT BENSON

________________________________________

Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional

address was given at Brigham Young University on 12 April 1977.

© Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Complete volumes of Speeches are available wherever LDS books are sold.

For further information contact:

Speeches, 218 University Press Building, Provo, Utah 84602.

(801) 422-2299 / E-mail: [email protected] / Speeches Home Page

________________________________________

My beloved brethren and sisters, humbly and gratefully I stand before you this morning and seek an interest in your faith and prayers that the message that I have may be accompanied by the Spirit. It is a wonderful sight that I view here this morning. It is good to be with you, my beloved young friends, distinguished members of the faculty, and special guests.

My wife and I have just returned from a glorious weekend at St. George, where I had the privilege of addressing three overflow audiences, two in the largest auditorium they have at Dixie College and made up largely of young people, and one on the fourth floor of the temple in a Solemn Assembly. We were honoring the centennial of the dedication of the St. George Temple, the first one to be erected in the western part of the country. We are still basking in the aftermath of another great general conference of the Church. Never in my memory have we had more explicit warnings from prophets of God; and nowhere in the world are there men better prepared or more obligated to issue such warnings.

The Celestial Kingdom

Today I want to discuss some principles and laws of the celestial kingdom, and some of the fallacies of their perverted counterfeits in the world. I share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. The celestial kingdom, residence of God, our Eternal Father, is comprised of men and women who have complied with divine law and who were not deceived by the craftiness of men or the doctrines of devils. They are just men made perfect through the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:69). They are obedient to celestial law; for, as the Lord has said, he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory (D&C 88:22).

Celestial laws, embodied in certain ordinances belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, are complied with by voluntary covenants. The laws are spiritual. Thus, our Father in Heaven has ordained certain holy sanctuaries, called temples, in which these laws may be fully explained, the laws include the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.

I want to speak more particularly this morning about this one law--the law of consecration. It is that one's time, talents, strength, property, and money are given up to the Lord for the express purpose of building up the kingdom of God and establishing Zion on the earth. Or, as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105:5, "Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom."

Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.

The vehicle for implementing the law of consecration is the united order. The basic principle underlying the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; and, therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of our property, because it belongs to him. The united order was entered by "a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken" (D&C 42:30), according to the scriptures. In other words, an individual conveys his titles to all his property to the Church through the bishop. The property becomes the property of the Church. You read about this in the forty-second section of the Doctrine and Covenants.

The bishop then deeds back to the consecrator by legal instrument the amount of personal property required by the individual for the support of himself and his family, as the Lord declares, "according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3). This becomes the private, personal property of the individual to develop as he sees fit. It is his stewardship. When an individual produces a profit or surplus more than is needful for the support of himself and his family, the surplus is then placed in the bishops storehouse to administer to the poor and the needy. Under the united order, idleness has no place, and greed, selfishness, and covetousness are condemned. The united order may therefore operate with only a righteous people.

It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).

Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 57).

Two separate groups of saints have fully implemented this divine law. The first was the united order under Enoch, wherein the Lord designated this people Zion, "because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." We read of this in the seventh chapter, eighteenth verse, of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price. A second instance was the Nephite civilization following the visit of the Savior to the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection. This is recorded in 4 Nephi, the third verse particularly. The failure of the early Saints in this dispensation to live according to the fulness of the law is explained by the Lord in revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 101 and 105.

I repeat and emphasize that the law of consecration is a law for an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. God, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and all holy beings abide by this law. It is an eternal law. It is a revelation by God to his Church in this dispensation. Though not in full operation today, it will be mandatory for all Saints to live the law in its fulness to receive celestial inheritance. You young people today abide a portion of this higher law as you tithe, pay a generous fast offering, go on missions, and make other contributions of money, service, and time.

Satan's Counterfeit System

But whenever the God of heaven establishes by revelation his design, Satan always comes among men to pervert the doctrine, saying, "Believe it not." He often establishes a counterfeit system, designed to deceive the children of men. His aim, as it was before the foundation of this earth was laid, is to thwart the agency of man and to subjugate him. Throughout all ages of mankind, the adversary has used human agents and despotic governments to establish his purpose. Satan is determined to destroy all that is dear, all that will ennoble and exalt man to a celestial kingdom.

Isaiah foresaw the time when a marvelous work and a wonder would come forth among men (see Isaiah 29:14). Isaiah also predicted that there would be those that "seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they [shall] say, Who seeth us?" (Isaiah 29:15). He saw the time when the work, man, shall say of him that made him, "He made me not," denying his creation (see Isaiah 29:16). It is well to ask what self-proclaimed atheists came on the human scene following the restoration of the gospel, who established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution and who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not. Yes, Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble figures in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Today, if we are alert, we can see further fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies.

Communism--a System Antithetical to the Gospel of Christ Through the instigation of Marx and Engels, a most successful counterfeit to the united order was introduced into the world. The declaration of principles found in their Manifesto to the World advocated the overthrow of capitalism and free enterprise, the abolition of private property, the elimination of the family as a social unit, the abolition of all classes, the overthrow of all governments, and the establishment of communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. All this was to be accomplished by revolution.

On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part; I hope you will get a copy of the full statement for your files. In part, the statement reads:

. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .

Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.

To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .

Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .

Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.

We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [and shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.

Signed,

President Heber J. Grant

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

The First Presidency

You students have only to read some of the speeches and writings of the exiled Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to appreciate this farsighted warning of the First Presidency.

I have been on both sides of the Iron Curtain several times. I have talked to these godless leaders face to face. I say to you with all the sincerity of my soul that since 1933 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress towards its objective of world domination, for over one-third of the human family are now under totalitarian subjugation.

Today we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of men. It is a battle between two opposite systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle today is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom, so called, is that we have got to learn to live with communism, to give up our ideas about national sovereignty. You hear that repeated today. Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of communism. Learn to live with communism? Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear.

The gospel of Jesus Christ can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. As members of his Church, we have a major responsibility to do all in our power to see that freedom is preserved and safeguarded. I pray that God will bless you to see communism for what it really is: the greatest system of human slavery that the world has ever known. May you not be deceived into believing that the communists have moderated their goal toward world domination. I say to you that so-called detente is a fraud. Time will prove it to be such.

There is no excuse for any BYU instructor to grant a forum to an avowed communist for the purpose of teaching communism on this campus. It may be done on other campuses in the United States, but it will not be done here.

Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty

Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."

Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).

Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures

As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.

This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.

Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!

Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.

The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.

Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.

Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,

A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(Pres. Benson Cont.)

Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?

Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).

When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.

Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?

I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.

My Hope for You, the Youth of Zion

In opening my remarks to you, beloved youth of the Church, I attempted to share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. In closing my remarks, I share with you my hope for you:

I hope that you learn through your struggles the joy of achievement.

I hope that you recognize in the gospel of Jesus Christ a solution to our problems, temporal and spiritual.

I hope that you marry well, live together in love, rear a family in righteousness, and have joy and rejoicing in your posterity.

I hope that you follow the example and counsel of him whom the Lord has appointed as prophet, seer, and revelator.

I hope that you learn the joy of work, the ability to postpone wants, and the economic independence not to be a slave to any man.

I hope that you keep yourselves clean morally and spiritually, that your confidence will wax strong in the presence of God, as the scriptures say, and the Holy Ghost will be your constant companion (see D&C 121:45–46).

I hope that you will be united in philosophy, purpose, and action to the laws of the celestial kingdom.

I pray God's choicest blessings on you, my beloved brethren and sisters. May I say to you that there isn't anything in this world that's right that the leadership of this Church wouldn't do for the youth of the Church; and so I hope and pray that you realize the hope of those who love you and serve you and the possibilities of your potential as sons and daughters of God. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism--a System Antithetical to the Gospel of Christ Through the instigation of Marx and Engels, a most successful counterfeit to the united order was introduced into the world. The declaration of principles found in their Manifesto to the World advocated the overthrow of capitalism and free enterprise, the abolition of private property, the elimination of the family as a social unit, the abolition of all classes, the overthrow of all governments, and the establishment of communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. All this was to be accomplished by revolution.

On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part; I hope you will get a copy of the full statement for your files. In part, the statement reads:

. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .

Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.

To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .

Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .

Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.

We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [and shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.

Signed,

President Heber J. Grant

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

The First Presidency

I don't believe this statement about Communism but agree about Socialism is a false ideals practiced Communism does'nt work but their are some examples where it has(communism) worked:)and that it has been practical it isn't a perfect system gee I wonder what the Prophet would think me being LDS and believing in TrueCommunism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dear Aliasgeorge

I always believed we do live in a united order being the Church of JesusChrist of LatterDay -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.

cheers:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avrham,

Your valid point is lost here. You are spitting (shall we say) into the wind. Nice try, though.

Vort, you are so wrong. There are many who lurk on boards such as this who need to hear these truths, who do not have knowledge sufficient to stand up and discuss these things with those who deride them.

A better analogy (shall we say) is that we are sowing seeds in the wind.

Also, is it never a lost cause to stand as a witness. You cannot see when your testimony will affect some Alma in the courts of Noah, even if you are burned at the stake for it.

The time is come that those who stand for Christ do so with firm resolve and determination and AN EXCESS OF LOVE.

when you feel frustrated remember those who your message may reach, and forget those who mock holy things.

also remember that it is encouraging to others of us who sometimes feel alone in this battle to see other warriors enter the fray.

I have sworn that I will be a staff for the nation to the best of my ability. The revealed Key to that is to "teach correct principles, and let them govern themselves" many no longer know those principles, and so it becomes our duty testify of them. Some our testimony may condemn, others it will edify. At some point we may again have a people virtuous enough for the Constitution or even the United Order.

know also that as long as I can fight, you will have an ally.

Frodo: "I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."

Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought."

Edited by threepercent
add comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Law of Consecration applies to individuals that have been to the temple. However, we promise in the temple to accept it, not necessarily live it right now. However, the caveat being that we must prepare ourselves to live it.

The Law of Consecration is not currently working in the Church (note the quote I've given before from the current PH/RS manual). It has been withdrawn from the Church, and replaced with the law of tithing. Still, we are to prepare for the day when it will be lived by the Church. There's nothing that says we cannot work to live it in our personal lives.

The reality is, it is NOT lived in the Church right now. Tithing and service are the laws we currently abide by as we prepare as a Church and people to live the entire law of Consecration. Are there individuals who strive to live it? Of course. But given that we give only 10% plus some offerings to the Church, we are still far shy of living it in a financial way. Do we focus our time and talents on establishing Zion, or do we spend our moneys and energies on personal comfort and entertainment (keys to capitalism and its workings).

How many of us have one foot in Zion and one in Babylon? Don't you think that if we, as a people, were really living consecrated lives that we would have had some form of United Order established right now? Wouldn't we have our properties turned into stewardships on an official level, and not a personal choice level? Wouldn't consecration have been a major chapter in the current Priesthood/Relief Society manual, rather than relegated to paragraph explaining why it and plural marriage are not being studied?

As individuals, I hope that we strive to live a consecrated life. But as I've served in various stake and ward callings I see that the work is performed by the same ten people (STP) in each unit. I see tithes being paid by less than half the membership. Only 40% of members attend Sacrament meeting on a frequent basis. How is that consecration?

The reality is, the temple recommend interview asks about Tithing, not consecration. A person must only be living a terrestrial law in order to enter the temple. The temple, then, is to prepare people to live a celestial law - consecration. Still, most temple goers are not anywhere near living a consecrated life, if they are like most of the temple goers I have known.

I long for the day when we will live the Law of Consecration. But I'm not going to pretend that we do. Instead, the Church backed off from it in the late 19th century, and embraced capitalism as a stop gap measure. Unfortunately, capitalism has led many away from consecrated spirituality and to complacent wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Law of Consecration applies to individuals that have been to the temple. However, we promise in the temple to accept it, not necessarily live it right now. However, the caveat being that we must prepare ourselves to live it.

The Law of Consecration is not currently working in the Church (note the quote I've given before from the current PH/RS manual). It has been withdrawn from the Church, and replaced with the law of tithing. Still, we are to prepare for the day when it will be lived by the Church. There's nothing that says we cannot work to live it in our personal lives.

The reality is, it is NOT lived in the Church right now. Tithing and service are the laws we currently abide by as we prepare as a Church and people to live the entire law of Consecration. Are there individuals who strive to live it? Of course. But given that we give only 10% plus some offerings to the Church, we are still far shy of living it in a financial way. Do we focus our time and talents on establishing Zion, or do we spend our moneys and energies on personal comfort and entertainment (keys to capitalism and its workings).

How many of us have one foot in Zion and one in Babylon? Don't you think that if we, as a people, were really living consecrated lives that we would have had some form of United Order established right now? Wouldn't we have our properties turned into stewardships on an official level, and not a personal choice level? Wouldn't consecration have been a major chapter in the current Priesthood/Relief Society manual, rather than relegated to paragraph explaining why it and plural marriage are not being studied?

As individuals, I hope that we strive to live a consecrated life. But as I've served in various stake and ward callings I see that the work is performed by the same ten people (STP) in each unit. I see tithes being paid by less than half the membership. Only 40% of members attend Sacrament meeting on a frequent basis. How is that consecration?

The reality is, the temple recommend interview asks about Tithing, not consecration. A person must only be living a terrestrial law in order to enter the temple. The temple, then, is to prepare people to live a celestial law - consecration. Still, most temple goers are not anywhere near living a consecrated life, if they are like most of the temple goers I have known.

I long for the day when we will live the Law of Consecration. But I'm not going to pretend that we do. Instead, the Church backed off from it in the late 19th century, and embraced capitalism as a stop gap measure. Unfortunately, capitalism has led many away from consecrated spirituality and to complacent wealth.

You're right that on a societal level the law of consecration is not being implemented. When is implemented, its called the united order. Maybe this is semantics, but you continue to say: "The Law of Consecration is not currently working in the Church (note the quote I've given before from the current PH/RS manual)." Is the church curriculum commitee your ultimate authority? Which do you put higher, D&C or a church manual? I love the church manuals, and I think they are great, but they are not cannonized scripture. And IMHO the church manuals could be phrased a little better every once and a while. When studying gospel topics, you need to take all things together.

Don't hold to one quote in one place, you need to read what all the prophets have said in all the locations. Read D&C 107:27,29 (and scriptures before it to get the context). There is an order to revelation. When the governing priesthood quorum unanimously proclaim something, they take presidence over any and all other things that have been said on the matter. So start with those! And you will find that the law of consecration is "working" in the church on an individual level by the members. It is not "working in the church" on any higher level though.

The temple covenants are to be lived here and now. Is there any question as to whether or not we covenant to have sexual relations only when married? Of course not. We promise and then must live that law here and now. How about to conduct our lives according to the law of the gospel found in the scriptures? We promise, and are expected to implement NOW. So, why would anyone think living the law of consecration is anything different? Because they think that the united order is the law of consecration--which would make them think the law of consecration was repealed! False! We promise to live the law of consecration in their personal lives. No, we don't give more than 10% in tithes, but your whole life--time talents and resources--should be dedicated to building up the kingdom of God. That should be the goal and purpose you have in this life, and you should manage your time, talents, money, and any other resources accordingly.

I agree with you that some in our church may not be conducting their lives as they ought. Hopefully they're growing to a better life and understanding though. I would take care to judge others and their motives though. Yes there are some selfish people in the church, but the question is: "are they better than they were in the past, and are they moving in the right direction." In addition to this, you don't know the heart of the individuals, and you likely don't know their true motive.

Capitalism is a system supported by our church authorities. If you question that, do some research. Its not the perfect system that we will have when Christ returns, but in the interim, it is the system GOD GAVE US through the inspired constitution and founding fathers. If you have a problem with that, do some research as to what the D&C has to say about the divinely inspired constitution.

I can see how you could be frustrated with the selfishness that can be seen in the system of capitalism. But the real issue is that God gave man his agency, and God lets man do what he chooses in this life, be it for good or bad. The freedom of our nation is b/c God gave us the constitution to lay the foundation for the restoration. Don't try to change it. You should fight to support and sustain it. And socialism in any of its forms is in direct opposition to the constitution.

Edited by aliasgeorge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I need to know members' motives and thoughts to judge straight issues such as: are they paying their tithes?

Brigham Young once stated that we should excommunicate those who do not pay tithes, but we don't. He's right. Technically, tithing is a terrestrial law. We tend to excommunicate telestial people: adultery, murder, other such crimes against God. But we stop short on Word of Wisdom and Tithes, with the exception that they are kept from the temple and the higher covenants.

I agree that we as individuals should seek to live consecrated lives. But I would suggest most of us still fall short, due to our pride and selfishness. Why would we think ourselves any better than the early Saints, who failed to live the law of consecration, and so it was removed institutionally?

I quote the manual, because it has the things the Brethren would have us know today. The headings for the D&C were written 30 years ago, and need updating. Should I quote dead prophets over living ones? While the manual was written by members, the manual was reviewed and approved by the Brethren. They are the ones who implemented this series for the PH and RS to study and ponder upon. Should I question things written in it, that they have approved? Is it, or is it not an officially approved manual? To reject ideas taught in it is to question the Brethren of TODAY. While the law of plural marriage is an eternal law, we do not live it institutionally (albeit some members do live it today, having been widowed and resealed). That still does not mean it is actively practiced. So it is with consecration.

When the Law of Consecration is reimplemented (and I look forward to that day), we will see a lot of changes among the membership. How many members will be willing to give up their "excess"? Would that excess possibly include selling the 5000 square foot home with swimming pool, and moving into something modest, so that the excess can be given to the poor? I'm not judging individuals here, as some may have a very specific and pertinent reason to live lavishly. Still, I believe that many LDS have embraced capitalism so fervently that it will be difficult for many to actually consecrate their stuff.

And when it comes to service, just ask your ward and stake leaders what the acronym "STP" means. I have heard dozens of bishops, stake presidents, and General Authorities concerned over how we overwork a few members in each unit. I heard Elder Holland warn us that the Church was concerned that we were "killing our bishops." That can only occur if others are not stepping up to the consecrated plate of service and doing their part. For those who have been in bishoprics, how many people have refused to give Sacrament talks or work in the nursery? I fear it is more common a problem than some would pretend.

I do not think the Church, overall, will be ready for consecration when it is institutionalized. It will require some massive humbling from the Lord to prepare us. I'm not pessimistic in this, either. I'm pragmatic. I'm not judging individuals, as I know that some do have pertinent reasons not to serve or do certain things. But I cannot believe that 60% of the members have good reasons to not pay tithes, and an even greater number are not holding current temple recommends. As a Church, we will someday have to face these issues - possibly because the Lord will impose greater requirements on us, or because disasters will compel many to be humbled in their unreadiness.

It isn't strange that the parable of the 12 virgins show half of them ill prepared. I highly doubt that the Lord will open the door late for them, acceptingthe excuse that they were just "fashionably late."

I know that man has agency. And I am thankful for it. But as a history and gospel student, I also know that God will not always let people have happiness in wickedness. And I fear for the Church more than this nation. If the members choose to follow the way of the world, will the Lord miraculously save us when we've repeatedly ignored warnings from the living prophets? Or will he allow us to suffer until we are sufficiently humbled, and then slowly begin to hear our cries?

Capitalism is not a bad system, per se. John Adams taught that our Republican form of government was for a principled people, for no other type of people would manage it. We see that today. Principled people would not have allowed such huge abuses to go on in the name of making a quick buck, as we see today in the housing/banking scandals. I do not know why I must fork over taxes to bail out companies that chose to act foolishly, and in some cases, illegally. And it is a foolish government that is trying to save anyone and everyone from the castigation Nature is attempting to impose upon them. I see these failings as part and parcel of a corrupted system and a corrupted and greedy people, who are about to be strongly reprimanded by a God who requires us to be faithful to him in order to prosper in the land.

In the book of Mormon, the Gadianton Robbers thrived during times of prosperity and free markets. They disappeared when the people suffered from famine and pestilence. Perhaps it is almost time to replace our corrupted capitalistic system with the Lord's system. I can only hope so.

BTW, I do support and defend our Constitution. I spent 20 years in the Air Force defending it. It is inspired. And the Law of Consecration can be run easily under it. I just am not sold on capitalism, which many people have replaced our Constitution with. Having capitalism does not have to be done under a Constitutional Republic. China and Russia are capitalist nations right now, and such power will (if I read my scriptures correctly), lead them to be in league with the Beast of the last days (which will force people to buy and sell with it in a totalitarian form of capitalism).

I'd hate to see us lose our Constitutional Republic, and replace it with a capitalist form of totalitarianism. And history shows that freedom tends to be lost as people replace luxury with principle.

Edited by rameumptom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, if one truly wishes to individually live the law of consecration today, he/she would have to look annually at what excess was made. Allowing for some savings for retirement, missions, etc., since the organizational United Order would not be around to maintain you in such events; I'd believe that donating to either the Church's funds (Missionary, Humanitarian, PEF, etc) or to one's favorite charities would suffice.

It would not be easy to determine this, and ensure that you were protected from a bad year, lay off, etc., as there would be no institutional protection as in the United Order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hate to see us lose our Constitutional Republic, and replace it with a capitalist form of totalitarianism.

What exactly is 'a capitalist form of totalitarianism'?

cap·i·tal·ism Posted Image (kāp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key

n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an Posted Image (tō-tāl'ĭ-târ'ē-ən) Pronunciation Key

adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)

The above American Heritage Dictionary definitions seem to make an oxy-moron of the term "totalitarian capitalism". How can a free market and totalitarianism exist in the same place? Thanks for your time, I appreciate your thoughts.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no completely perfect form of government. Most forms today lean toward a certain version, but aren't exact in the way they are implemented.

A state can be capitalist and not be for free speech, religion, press, or assembly. China, for example, has opened up private markets to enrich its nation. But they still clamp down on the Internet and freedom of expression. Same with Russia. Russia has forced many independent newspapers and tv stations to play by Putin's rules or be forced out of business. Meanwhile, many American and International companies drool at the prospects of opening up new markets in such countries.

Yahoo actually turned over the names of some Chinese dissidents, who had written against the government in their blogs, to the Chinese government, when they asked for them. They did this in order to continue working in China and capitalizing on the new markets there. Those dissidents are now in jail.

So one can have Totalitarianism and capitalism. Free markets, but everything else is closely controlled by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, if one truly wishes to individually live the law of consecration today, he/she would have to look annually at what excess was made. Allowing for some savings for retirement, missions, etc., since the organizational United Order would not be around to maintain you in such events; I'd believe that donating to either the Church's funds (Missionary, Humanitarian, PEF, etc) or to one's favorite charities would suffice.

Why do you suppose the law of consecration requires any such thing? Just listen to the covenant you make in the temple; it tells you everything you need to know in order to live the law of consecration right now, and it doesn't require precise accounting and large donations to charity.

Once we have truly dedicated all our substance and time to God and the building up of his kingdom (aka the LDS Church), we are living the law of consecration. It's just that easy, or that difficult. Note that this doesn't mean we have to be serving a proselytizing mission continually, or that we have to donate all our goods to charity or the Church, or cloister ourselves away. It means that everything we do, every decision we make, every action we take, is all done with an eye to God's glory and the building of the kingdom. The closer we come to living this ideal, the better we live the law of consecration. Signing all our stuff over to the bishop's warehouse is utterly irrelevant -- unless the bishop asks us to, that is.

If we truly understand and accept that all we "have" belongs to the Lord, that he may at any time, either in person or through his anointed leaders, require it of us and we will willingly give it, and that during the time we do hold stewardship over those things we will use them to advance the causes of our Father, then we are living the law of consecration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we truly understand and accept that all we "have" belongs to the Lord, that he may at any time, either in person or through his anointed leaders, require it of us and we will willingly give it, and that during the time we do hold stewardship over those things we will use them to advance the causes of our Father, then we are living the law of consecration.

We must be willing to do this, but we should seek to do many good things of our own free will and choice, without being asked. I think Rameumpton is addressing this--that saints will see their poor neighbor's kids and rather than help them will add a west-wing onto their house...

The law of consecration is to be implemented in our own personal lives. It means we must do with our time, talents and resources all that we possibly can to build the kingdom. For some, this may be to save as much money as fast as possible, so that they can retire at 55 and serve the lord full time for the next 30 years, rather than work on their golf game at the local country club. For some, this may be to grow companies so they can employ the poor and give them good jobs. The point is that if we are selfish and glut ourselves with our resources, we will be judged and condemned for it--especially if we neglected to help the poor around us to become rich like them. And I don't think giving them money is the answer--on the contrary. It would be spiritually and temporally damaging to give your neighbor a check for the next 30 years. Offering him a job, or helping pay for his kids missions or college is perhaps mor appropriate--or even helping to support him while he goes back to school. The answer is that we should desire to help others however we can, and look for ways to do so. And especially if the spirit subtly prompts you to help someone, you do it of course.

I think Ram. and I were getting off on semantics as to "implementation of the law of consecration." I just did an lds.org search, and seen some prophets use that language to describe the "united order." But we're clear, that the law of consecration is alive and well in our personal lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we truly understand and accept that all we "have" belongs to the Lord, that he may at any time, either in person or through his anointed leaders, require it of us and we will willingly give it, and that during the time we do hold stewardship over those things we will use them to advance the causes of our Father, then we are living the law of consecration.

We must be willing to do this, but we should seek to do many good things of our own free will and choice, without being asked.

You perhaps missed the relevant part of my post, which I have emphasized for your convenience.

Otherwise, I agree with the gist of your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I would like to begin with the statement that the two concepts of the Law of Consecration and Socialism are in fact two opposite ends of a political spectrum.

The most important principle of Socialism as I understand it is:

That everyone has right by law, to the same economic status. There should not be any additional financial reward for those that work harder or smarter even from those that do not work at all.

The most important principle of the Law of Consecration is in reality divided into two parts:

First: that everyone should be compensated for what they add to society according to the value or worth that is being given.

Second: That all should be expected to give freely to everyone in need (including the poor) according to their abilities to give and that those in need should maintain their dignity for being a positive force – regardless of their abilities to generate wealth.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem defending liberty and free agency, but I do have a problem when some conservatives use socialist as a term to encompass anything they don't like and try to color it as evil because of the past of communism.

If that is not what you are doing, then you are not who that quote was directed at.

I have thought about this the last few days because of some dealing with dyed in the wool socialists I have dealt with on other forums, so I wanted to come back and revisit this.

to break this appart:

some conservatives use socialist as a term to encompass anything they don't like and try to color it as evil

what some people do is irrelevant to truth, socialist as a term does describe evil, and again what people like or dislike is moot.

socialism, a form of collectivism, has no real difference between communism, fascism, mercantilism, or Nazism. They are all forms of totalitarianism and all are evil.

because of the past of communism.

communism is collectivism by force, and socialism is collectivism by fraud so I don't see the difference.

socialism, a form of collectivism, has no real difference between communism, fascism, mercantilism, or Nazism. They are all forms of totalitarianism and all are evil.

so I would like to qualify briefly.

Why evil? the collectivist will strip me of my liberty and my religion, and place me and my children in bondage, if I dont like it they call me evil and heartless, and I have yet to meet ONE who is the least concerned about this. why is that? because if they are concerned they are not socialists.

Whats more I personally consider it a greater evil because it presents itself and benevolent and compassionate, in other words it is evil disguised as good.

Now I still do not fall under your words because I am not left or right, so nope, they dont apply to me, but you post implied that there is perhaps some good in current communism or socialism, and that is incorrect.

:)

Edited by threepercent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that some terminology has changed since the days when Elder Ezra Taft Benson was warning us about the Soviet Union and Cuba.

What many nations consider socialism today is a part of their democratic process. People freely vote greater power to their government. Whether that is good or evil, or potentially good or evil, I cannot say. Still, the socialism in Britain is very different than the socialism in the former Soviet bloc.

Soviet Socialism was all-encompassing. It limited freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. And there was no true voice of the people in elections, as the only people who ever were elected were voted in from one party only: the Communist party.

Are there dangers with modern socialism? Of course. It can easily get away from the people and turn into a totalitarian system. But then capitalism can also become dangerous. D&C 94 actually warns us that anarchy can be worse than a strong head government. Too much freedom in the wrong hands is as bad (or worse) as too much control in the hands of a bad government.

This is where the Constitutional Republic comes in, ostensibly as a balance between the two. Since its inception, there has been an uneasy balance between Jefferson's free states and Washington's federalism (more power in the fed). And perhaps that's how it should be. We've seen bad things happen in this country from too much government on one side, and too much freedom on the other (just look at the abortion and unwanted pregnancy rates).

Just getting two people to draw the line in the same place is not an easy thing to do. Should government be involved in preemptive wars? Should they be involved in NATO and other entangling alliances? Should America withdraw politically and militarily from the world and pretend no one else has MWDs? There are cogent arguments on all sides to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People freely vote greater power to their government. Whether that is good or evil, or potentially good or evil, I cannot say.

Holland, while Pres at BYU quoted the following:

(From his talk, "At Their Most Enlightened And Alert")

Edmund Burke:

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

The implication is that the less personal control society has, the greater the government control... Holland points out that a truly righteous and civic-minded people would need practically no government at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holland, while Pres at BYU quoted the following:

(From his talk, "At Their Most Enlightened And Alert")

Edmund Burke:

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

The implication is that the less personal control society has, the greater the government control... Holland points out that a truly righteous and civic-minded people would need practically no government at all.

And this goes exactly in line with the laws of the heavens. Brigham Young stated that in the celestial kingdom, people will not need laws, because they will righteously rule themselves. However, in the lesser kingdoms there will be laws they must abide by (D&C 88). And D&C 76 suggests they will be governed and taught by those from higher kingdoms.

It does not mean that strong government is bad. It means that a people who cannot or will not control themselves must have fetters placed upon them in order for society to continue. For this reason, we have prisons. And personally, I think there's a lot of people on Wall Stree right now that probably deserve to be in prison for their unfettered abuses of our financial system. Any idiot would know that you can only leverage yourself so far and stay within safe limits. And any idiot can see that the CEOs of Fannie Mae, Lehman's, and Merril Lynch did some very unscrupulous things and made some extremely risky decisions in over lending to high risk individuals. Couldn't they remember the S&L and Enron scandals? Not stupid. Criminal! And this was done in a market that had been loosened and freed up by government. Do we really want to deregulate more of our markets, so that unscrupulous men can make millions, while the middle class and poor get trodden under even more? I thought we got rid of the robber barons a century ago!

Interestingly, Wilford Woodruff once noted that in the last days people will only desire to trade with the Saints, because they will be the only ones trustworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share