Law of Consecration vs. Socialism

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

Yeah right. Not the "saints" in Utah!!! Bunch of greedy crooks if ever there were any!

[rameumptom]

And that's part of the problem I see right now, when it comes to the Law of Consecration. The Saints, as a whole, are not living it. Nor are they preparing to live it. It will require something very serious, I believe, to awaken the sleeping saints and bring them to repentance and obedience, prior to Wilford Woodruff's prophecy to come to pass.

Perhaps that will be why some will be called to Missouri? To start a consecrated group of people and a place, where Utahans are generally not prepared for?

[rayhale]

From what I understand about the Law of Consecration or the United Order, as the early Saints practiced it, is this:

A family earns $100,000 a year, but can afford to live on $40,000, the extra $60,000 would go to the Church to be disbuted to the Saints that are making less than what they need, for example, they make $30,000 a year, but need $50,000.

There are several questions that I have, one is who decides what profession do you go into in the United Order? Does (or did the early Church) have a say as to what you do? For example, would they tell you to go to the medical field, or even strongly suggest? Would they create a ‘class’ system? A son of a doctor has to become a doctor, etc… (Remember that in olden times, it was a sign of honor and respect to go into the same bisness as your father, Jesus became a carpenter like his father). Since the Church owns ‘your’ property, what would happen to it if you left the Church? Would the Church have the right to reassign the property to someone else? Is this form of the Law of Consecration still expected? Or is it, like polygamy, where it was taken away until we can practice it more perfectly? Can individual church members practice this law, what I mean is, can we, as members, create a system of the Law of Consecration, or do we need to wait for the Church leaders to start it?

The Law of Tithing is a lower law of the Law of Consecration, but I have known a few people that put the Church in their will, so that when they died, all their money would go to the Church.

[rayhale]

(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 agree with Pres. Benson, I like the Church’s welfare program since it requires the person that needs money to work for it, work at a cannery, one of the Church’s welfare farms, or whatever you are capable of. This form of welfare encourages people to work, where the American welfare program encourages people to be lazy and do nothing to help them out of their situation. For example, my brother said that someone in his store was in the managers’ office to be offered a pay raise, but guess what? He thought it over, but said that he couldn’t accept since he would loose his welfare money!

[Justice]

Consecration is done under covenant and is strictly voluntary.

[applepansy]

I didn't read through the whole thread but the answer to the OP is simple.

The Law of Consecration is voluntary. Socialism isn't.

Voluntary doesn't break the law of Agency. Socialism infringes on our agency. That alone makes it Satan's plan.

applepansy

[rameumptom]

Just to clarify one thing: there is a difference between free will and moral agency. The Church preaches agency, not necessarily free will. The former is an absolute freedom to do whatsoever (and is impacted by socialism). The latter is the ability to choose between right and wrong (and is not impacted by socialism). We are judged of God for our use of moral agency, not our use of free will.

That said, I am opposed to socialism, as it is an apostate form of the United Order. Satan has twisted it into its current state, which looks really nice to many on the outside, but is a rotting carcase within.

[applepansy]

From what I understand about the Law of Consecration or the United Order, as the early Saints practiced it, is this:

A family earns $100,000 a year, but can afford to live on $40,000, the extra $60,000 would go to the Church to be disbuted to the Saints that are making less than what they need, for example, they make $30,000 a year, but need $50,000.

There are several questions that I have, one is who decides what profession do you go into in the United Order? Does (or did the early Church) have a say as to what you do? For example, would they tell you to go to the medical field, or even strongly suggest? Would they create a ‘class’ system? A son of a doctor has to become a doctor, etc… (Remember that in olden times, it was a sign of honor and respect to go into the same bisness as your father, Jesus became a carpenter like his father). Since the Church owns ‘your’ property, what would happen to it if you left the Church? Would the Church have the right to reassign the property to someone else? Is this form of the Law of Consecration still expected? Or is it, like polygamy, where it was taken away until we can practice it more perfectly? Can individual church members practice this law, what I mean is, can we, as members, create a system of the Law of Consecration, or do we need to wait for the Church leaders to start it?

The Law of Tithing is a lower law of the Law of Consecration, but I have known a few people that put the Church in their will, so that when they died, all their money would go to the Church.

Your questions imply that we'll loose our agency when we're living the Law of Consecration. We won't. We'll decide who we are and what we do for a living. We will decide what we need and what to donate. There will be no class system. The Church will own what you donate. We will not loose our AGENCY.

The Law of Consecration is a change of heart. You freely GIVE all you do not need. You freely work hard to increase your income so that you can help provide for those who cannot (not "will not") provide for themselves. If you donate property to the church then the church has the right to reassign that property. It was donated and no longer is owned by the individual.

I do not believe anyone would leave the church after having the change of heart necessary to live the Law of Consecration. They have a higher degree of knowledge based on their actions and the blessings those actions bring.

Yes, I believe we as individuals can live a form of the Law of Consecration. My husband's neighbor growing up was a perfect example of this. He is a rancher. Ranching does not make millions. They were land rich and cash poor. But they gave everything. If someone needed something more than they did they gave it away. He provided work for people who couldn't find jobs even though he was barely supporting his family. As a husband/wife team they were good stewards over what the Lord had given them. Because they had proven themselves a miracle happened. Oil was discovered on their Ranch. He is now worth millions. But you wouldn't know it. He still wear Wrangler jeans, etc. He still lives in the same house. As he's gotten older he can't do the heavy ranching so one of his children has taken over.

The point of this true story is that when we are good stewards of what we are given, the Lord blesses us.

Part of the Temple convenant is obeying the Law of Consecration as described in scripture. We are expected to live this law.

applepansy

EDIT: The City of Enoch lived the Law of Consecration and that's why they were removed and protected from the world and their enemies.

Edited April 17, 2009 by applepansy

[Maxel]

That said, I am opposed to socialism, as it is an apostate form of the United Order. Satan has twisted it into its current state, which looks really nice to many on the outside, but is a rotting carcase within.

I came to the same conclusion a while ago. This way of putting it, however, reminded me of advice from Christ:

Matthew 23:26

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The burning question, then, is:

Would the Pharisees have lobbied for socialism?

(Okay, that's not really the burning question...)

[bytebear]

Tha Law of Consecration is trusting in people to do the right thing (and knowing what the right thing is). Socialism is not trusting them and thereby forcing them to do what YOU think is the right thing.

[Moksha]

Socialism is not trusting them and thereby forcing them to do what YOU think is the right thing.

You are right. Besides the implication that they should care for everyone, there is the implication that people need to be protected from exploitation. I imagine that certainly sticks in the craw of potential exploiters. Socialism lacks the trust for the basic goodness of all Humankind that is probably an inherent part of the Law of Consecration.