LDS endowed members: What would you do?

[Vort]

What would you do if your bishop instructed you to sign over your house, your car, and everything else you own of value to the Church by tomorrow?

[NeuroTypical]

I'd do it. Sounds like it would go with a hefty lifestyle change involving hard work and outdoor air. Sitting in a cube for 8 hrs/day isn't as fun as I thought it would be.

LM

[beefche]

Depends. Am I signing it over to him or the church? Is he asking me to keep this a secret and not discuss with anyone, including church authorities? Are these instructions with the approval of the stake president and area authority? Have I prayed about it and received a confirming answer from God?

If it is a legit request and I received confirmation from the Lord, then I am under covenant to do so. And then I'm moving to Jackson County....

[Vort]

I'd do it. Sounds like it would go with a hefty lifestyle change involving hard work and outdoor air. Sitting in a cube for 8 hrs/day isn't as fun as I thought it would be.

LM

There's a poll, too, LM.

[Just_A_Guy]

1. Try to ensure that this request was authorized by the bishop's superiors/the Church at large.

2. Pray really, really hard.

3. If I get a revelation to do it, then do it. (Easy for me to say. I have no house, my car is worth under a thousand bucks.)

4. If I don't get a revelation by the allotted time frame . . . I dunno. Ask for more time, maybe?

(I marked answer 2, but it's not a perfect fit. I might be able to muster the faith to do it without a personal, direct revelation if I knew the request was sanctioned by the Church and not just my local bishop going off on a limb.)

Edited November 11, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Misshalfway]

I would want to know that the bishop wasn't off his rocker. Something like that, I believe would come from SLC and would be a church wide thing with specific directions and explanations.

And just like everything else, spiritual confirmation would certainly be something I would seek.

[Vort]

Depends. Am I signing it over to him or the church?

The Church.

Is he asking me to keep this a secret and not discuss with anyone, including church authorities?

He didn't mention anything about Church authorities.

Are these instructions with the approval of the stake president and area authority?

He didn't say.

Have I prayed about it and received a confirming answer from God?

No.

If it is a legit request and I received confirmation from the Lord, then I am under covenant to do so.

Are you under covenant only in that situation?

[Misshalfway]

Why are you asking Vort? Did you just sign over your house to the EQP?

[Vort]

I would want to know that the bishop wasn't off his rocker. Something like that, I believe would come from SLC and would be a church wide thing with specific directions and explanations.

And just like everything else, spiritual confirmation would certainly be something I would seek.

Assume you felt quite certain that the bishop was not "off his rocker", and that up to this point, the bishop was a man who had proven trustworthy.

[Vort]

Why are you asking Vort? Did you just sign over your house to the EQP?

:) EQP has no authority to make such a request...

[havejoy]

I always take time to pray about it and get my own confirmation before accepting a calling in the church. I don't see this as any different. I'll do whatever my Heavenly Father asks me to do; but ultimately He has to do the asking.

[Vort]

I always take time to pray about it and get my own confirmation before accepting a calling in the church. I don't see this as any different. I'll do whatever my Heavenly Father asks me to do; but ultimately He has to do the asking.

Does D&C 1:38 have any bearing on your statement?

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

[havejoy]

Not as long as I have the ability to recieve my own revelation.

[Wingnut]

Have I prayed about it and received a confirming answer from God?

No.

Without personal confirmation? No way!

I always take time to pray about it and get my own confirmation before accepting a calling in the church. I don't see this as any different. I'll do whatever my Heavenly Father asks me to do; but ultimately He has to do the asking.

Does D&C 1:38 have any bearing on your statement?

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Not when it comes to personal confirmation. I don't think that havejoy is implying that she expects a personal visitation, but rather that she would seek her own confirmation and testimony of the request first, much the same as with any Gospel principle, or even the things we hear at General Conference.

[DigitalShadow]

I'm ineligible for the poll, but I still find this thread fascinating. Out of curiosity, how would you answer your own question, Vort?

Edited November 11, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Misshalfway]

Assume you felt quite certain that the bishop was not "off his rocker", and that up to this point, the bishop was a man who had proven trustworthy.

I still would want to see a copy of the letter he received authorizing such a request from his presiding authorities and the purpose for such a request. Then I would like to see scriptural or revelatory documentation that this was indeed a legit church practice, albeit new and unusual.

There is only one scenerio in which such a request would come and that is if the church raised up the law of consecration or moved us another step toward the united order. And that would not happen on the local level without the first presidency and official accountants being involved to protect the church legally. My regard for the sweetness of the bishop would be irrelevant. And needing this documentation would not mean my faith was weak.

[Vort]

I still would want to see a copy of the letter he received authorizing such a request from his presiding authorities and the purpose for such a request. Then I would like to see scriptural or revelatory documentation that this was indeed a legit church practice, albeit new and unusual.

Assume he refused to give you such documentation. He is simply asking, in his capacity as a bishop in Zion (in particular, your bishop), that you immediately donate all real properties to the Church.

If it makes a difference, you may further assume that he tells you he is acting under instruction from the stake president, who is himself acting under higher instruction.

[beefche]

I do believe that a bishop is called of God and is a servant of God. But he is also human and fallible. For something this big and with such potential impacts, I would need to know that it was more than just the bishop making a request. And I would absolutely need to be allowed time to pray about it.

[Just_A_Guy]

:) EQP has no authority to make such a request...

Under the current policies of the Church, neither does the bishop. In the absence of a spiritual confirmation, at minimum I'd want to know that those policies have changed.

[Vort]

Under the current policies of the Church, neither does the bishop. In the absence of a spiritual confirmation, at minimum I'd want to know that those policies have changed.

What makes you think this is the case? The bishop sets building fund requests in areas where such funds are still collected. The bishop collects tithes and authorizes storehouse withdrawals. As the president of the Aaronic Priesthood, the bishop is responsible for all temporal matters in the ward. This is well-established in the Doctrine and Covenants, which afaik hasn't been superseded.

I have never heard of a bishop making any such request, but if my understanding is correct, he is fully capable of doing so under the authority inherent in the office he holds.

[Vort]

I'm ineligible for the poll, but I still find this thread fascinating. Out of curiosity, how would you answer your own question, Vort?

I would do as the bishop instructs. I have made my covenants; I gave everything I "own" to the kingdom of God on earth 27 years ago. I am merely a steward, so if my bishop requires my stewardship, I will relinquish it to him.

I confess, I am more than a bit surprised that no one else here appears to share my understanding, either of the nature of the covenants made in the temple or of the position of the bishop in the kingdom of God.

[Just_A_Guy]

What makes you think this is the case? The bishop sets building fund requests in areas where such funds are still collected. The bishop collects tithes and authorizes storehouse withdrawals. As the president of the Aaronic Priesthood, the bishop is responsible for all temporal matters in the ward. This is well-established in the Doctrine and Covenants, which afaik hasn't been superseded.

I have never heard of a bishop making any such request, but if my understanding is correct, he is fully capable of doing so under the authority inherent in the office he holds.

If Bishops had the inherent authority to fully apply the Law of Consecration within their wards independent of any authorization from Salt Lake, don't you think at least one of the twenty-thousand-odd wards in the Church would be doing it by now and that we'd have heard about it?

I confess, I am more than a bit surprised that no one else here appears to share my understanding, either of the nature of the covenants made in the temple or of the position of the bishop in the kingdom of God.

I daresay I possess a rudimentary understanding the nature of the covenants (I'm not being falsely humble here; just acknowledging that there are many, many layers of understanding to these covenants and I don't pretend that mine is anything like comprehensive). It's the position of bishop vis a vis the General Authorities about which I think we may disagree.

You cite D&C 1:38. Well, as a member of the First Presidency wasn't John C. Bennett also a "servant" of God for a while? Does that mean that he was acting properly when he initiated his system of spiritual wifery, and/or that his victims had a duty to submit to his advances?

Edited November 11, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[DigitalShadow]

I would do as the bishop instructs. I have made my covenants; I gave everything I "own" to the kingdom of God on earth 27 years ago. I am merely a steward, so if my bishop requires my stewardship, I will relinquish it to him.

I confess, I am more than a bit surprised that no one else here appears to share my understanding, either of the nature of the covenants made in the temple or of the position of the bishop in the kingdom of God.

Would you truly not even question the validity and motivation behind such an odd request and so easily put the welfare of your entire family on the line? If so I admire your faith but confess I don't think I am even capable of that level of faith.

[BenRaines]

Good question. There would be more than just the Bishop asking but if the Bishop told me that is what was supposed to happen then I would, to the church, not to the Bishop or his friend.

Ben Raines

[Vort]

Have I prayed about it and received a confirming answer from God?

No.

Without personal confirmation? No way!

So you're saying that, as long as you don't pray about the bishop's direction and receive personal revelation that you're supposed to do it, you will refuse to follow what he says?

Not when it comes to personal confirmation. I don't think that havejoy is implying that she expects a personal visitation, but rather that she would seek her own confirmation and testimony of the request first, much the same as with any Gospel principle, or even the things we hear at General Conference.

Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding you, Wingnut. If we hear something at General Conference -- for example, an instruction that we should all do X (hold FHE twice a week, let's say) -- then you are saying that as long as we don't pray about it or don't receive confirming revelation that we are supposed to do that, we are not under any sort of obligation to follow the counsel given?