LDS endowed members: What would you do?

[Vort]

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?

Perhaps. But the scenario has nothing to do with living the "united order", and afaik we are under covenant "to fully apply the Law of Consecration" in our own lives right at this moment.

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.

I don't doubt either your doctrinal understanding or your devotion (or, for that matter, your modesty). I acknowledge that my understanding may be deficient. I am just surprised that no one else seems to share it.

[Vort]

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 that his victims had a duty to submit to him?

"Spiritual wifery" is a violation of the law of chastity. I don't think signing your house over to the bishop or the Church violates any covenants or laws, especially if you have already declared that it belongs to the kingdom of God and you're just a steward over it.

[Vort]

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.

Frankly, our society is set up such that it's extraordinarily unlikely that my family would suffer fatal or even devastating consequences -- even if our extended families did not get involved to help us out if needed.

From my pov, the point is that I don't own anything. I am simply a steward for "my" property. I understand the bishop to be authorized by God to deal with his (God's) property, which surely includes "my property". Therefore, if my understanding is correct, the bishop is fully authorized to ask me to sign over my stuff. It's not even a matter of faith in the bishop. If I'm a believing Latter-day Saint who has been through the temple, I don't see any other way to interpret the situation -- hence my surprise at many of the responses.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Vort

[The_Seeker]

I would do it, as long as I was sure it was something coming from the Church and not just the Bishop. I've made the covenant and had better live up to it. I imagine a *lot* of other things would be changing as well, either before or after this request was made.

Not sure where that would fit in your poll choices, so I didn't vote.

[lost87]

this is a very interesting thread. Is that a covenant that you make in the temple?

[skippy740]

Sure! Could you imagine the tax breaks available for donating such property to a 501©3 charitable organization???

[Vort]

this is a very interesting thread. Is that a covenant that you make in the temple?

It is Vort's understanding of one of the covenants. Obviously, it is not everyone else's understanding.

Mods: If you feel this thread violates the sanctity of the covenants made in the temple endowment, please delete it.

[Misshalfway]

Perhaps. But the scenario has nothing to do with living the "united order", and afaik we are under covenant "to fully apply the Law of Consecration" in our own lives right at this moment.

I don't doubt either your doctrinal understanding or your devotion (or, for that matter, your modesty). I acknowledge that my understanding may be deficient. I am just surprised that no one else seems to share it.

I think we live in a time when we can't be as trusting as perhaps we would like to be. Exercizing faith, in LDS terms, isn't a blind faith model. We are told to go home and pray about stuff we are asked to do. We are also asked to pray before so the spirit can confirm the message.

This issue is more than just whether or not I will obey. Of course, I committed everything i have and am to the kingdom of heaven on earth. BUT, that doesn't mean I don't need to be cautious and discerning about the way I do that.

It is the plague of every generation to let religious power go to their heads. If the bishop was acting in a new and unique and slightly odd manner, it would be my duty to myself and my friends to ask questions before I offered my compliance. I could see the same bishop using the same logic to lure a person into a compromising position.

And I am with the other poster who said that if the Lord commands then, you bet I am in. But if it is just a man who is on his own erroneous errand, no way.

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps. But the scenario has nothing to do with living the "united order", and afaik we are under covenant "to fully apply the Law of Consecration" in our own lives right at this moment.

I'd need to bone up on my study of how consecration interacts with the United Order. As it is now, though, I don't see a material difference between the two. AFAIK, LDS scripture prescribes a role for bishops under both schemes. If he can act independently (without GA authorization) under one, why not the other?

I acknowledge that my understanding may be deficient. I am just surprised that no one else seems to share it.

I do see your point, Vort. If I can refuse to give my house to the Bishop when he asks, why not a car, or a boat, or a fast offering, or a Wednesday night . . . I see where you're going.

Is there a line beyond which a bishop is asking "too much"? From my standpoint--assuming he's acting righteously--there shouldn't be. But what happens if he's acting unrighteously? What of D&C 121, "amen to the priesthood of that man" and all that jazz?

And from the Church's standpoint--surely the issue has come up before and there is some kind of guideline--even if unspoken--about how the limits of a bishop's authority to invoke the covenant of consecration.

"Spiritual wifery" is a violation of the law of chastity.

So was plural marriage, as "chastity" was understood prior to its introduction.

I don't think signing your house over to the bishop or the Church violates any covenants or laws, especially if you have already declared that it belongs to the kingdom of God and you're just a steward over it.

To the Church--no; I agree with you.

To the Bishop--the Bishop is not the Church. There are probably individual blessings afforded to those who can muster the faith to engage in (I hate to use the term because it's so loaded) "blind obedience", but I don't recall anything in the Endowment that binds me to it. I interpret myself as covenanting not to undermine a leader who's doing something I may not agree with; but I don't see a solemn obligation to obey the leader independently of that leader's righteousness.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

Just to add to the discussion:

President Hinckley on Bishops

President Hinckley on Stake Presidents

[Generally_Me]

Not being an endowed member, I can't vote. But if I could, I would vote for the "prophet himself" option. Though I would be happy with him announcing it over the pulpit rather than coming to my house and visiting himself.

Question: if my house is mortgaged, can I donate it? The way I understand the law of consecration, the church would provide living quarters for myself and my family, my money would go to the church and the church would provide food and clothing, etc. Correct?

[DigitalShadow]

Frankly, our society is set up such that it's extraordinarily unlikely that my family would suffer fatal or even devastating consequences -- even if our extended families did not get involved to help us out if needed.

From my pov, the point is that I don't own anything. I am simply a steward for "my" property. I understand the bishop to be authorized by God to deal with his (God's) property, which surely includes "my property". Therefore, if my understanding is correct, the bishop is fully authorized to ask me to sign over my stuff. It's not even a matter of faith in the bishop. If I'm a believing Latter-day Saint who has been through the temple, I don't see any other way to interpret the situation -- hence my surprise at many of the responses.

I know of a lot of families (including mine) that would be devastated and have an extremely hard time putting food on the table if we immediately gave up all our possessions. Assuming you were in such a position that you could not guarantee the welfare of your family after carrying through with such a request, would you still not hesitate in following it?

Edited November 12, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[deseretgov]

As long as it's part of the program of the church. The Law of Consecration is the way to go. It'd be nice to be able to do what I enjoy as a job and not have to struggle to make ends meet. Not that I have to struggle that much right now. I'm just saying what I enjoy probably wouldn't be that big of money maker.

[Vort]

I think we live in a time when we can't be as trusting as perhaps we would like to be.

Not sure how this is a matter of trust. If my bishop commanded me to take a second wife, or to beat someone up, or to embezzle funds, then I'm fine with turning him down. But when my bishop tells me to give to the Church property which I already freely acknowledged belongs to said Church, and not to me, then I don't see where trust really has anything to do with it.

Exercizing faith, in LDS terms, isn't a blind faith model.

I do not know what "blind faith" means. Can you enlighten me?

We are told to go home and pray about stuff we are asked to do. We are also asked to pray before so the spirit can confirm the message.

True enough. But have we ever been instructed not to obey until we have received said confirmation? I think we have not ever been given such instruction.

This issue is more than just whether or not I will obey. Of course, I committed everything i have and am to the kingdom of heaven on earth. BUT, that doesn't mean I don't need to be cautious and discerning about the way I do that.

If you have discerned that your bishop, who holds the keys to his calling and has responsibility for all temporal affairs in the ward, has asked you to give to the Church the property that you already acknowledged belonged to the Church and not to you, what more discernment do you need?

When the bishop asks a priest to officiate at the sacrament table, does that priest need to gain a testimony that the bishop's request is inspired by Jesus Christ before he takes his place to bless the sacrament?

It is the plague of every generation to let religious power go to their heads. If the bishop was acting in a new and unique and slightly odd manner, it would be my duty to myself and my friends to ask questions before I offered my compliance. I could see the same bishop using the same logic to lure a person into a compromising position.

If the issue is sex (e.g. the bishop is trying to fornicate with someone), then that's clearly outside his purview and a violation of covenant, so I agree. If the issue is money, that the bishop is asking for Church money and/or property to be turned over to the Church, then I don't see how that compares.

And I am with the other poster who said that if the Lord commands then, you bet I am in. But if it is just a man who is on his own erroneous errand, no way.

Assuming the Lord does not make it known to you, how are you to discern this?

[Misshalfway]

What good would it do to take over the deed to my house? The church is first and foremost there to provide for the physical wellness of people and the bishop functions primarily in that responsibility.

What would they do with my house anyway? Give it to the homeless? ...and at the same time they create more homelessness?

We aren't to overextend ourselves to get foodstorage or to pay fast offerings or to serve others by charging on our credit cards.

[beefche]

I'm just going to go behind JAG and say "ditto!" to everything he says.

[sixpacktr]

I'd do it. The Bishop is the judge in Israel over me, and I have made those covenants. Would it be easy? No, I don't believe it would be. But I believe that we will have that trial, someday, when we will be asked to hand everything over.

Also, I would want to believe that I have lived my life in accordance with the Spirit so that I can get a witness then and there that this was req'd of me. If I didn't get the witness, I'd check with the SP, but having served with many Bishops, I know that they wouldn't ask such a thing lightly. So my covenants take over and I simply trust in the Lord.

[Vort]

I'd need to bone up on my study of how consecration interacts with the United Order. As it is now, though, I don't see a material difference between the two.

It is the difference between the law of chastity and plural marriage. We no longer live plural marriage. Does that therefore mean that we no longer live the law of chastity?

Is there a line beyond which a bishop is asking "too much"? From my standpoint--assuming he's acting righteously--there shouldn't be. But what happens if he's acting unrighteously? What of D&C 121, "amen to the priesthood of that man" and all that jazz?

I do not know the answer, but I know a story about Brigham Young. He is supposed to have been called before Joseph Smith and other brethren and accused by Joseph of all sorts of things he didn't do. Instead of condemning Joseph Smith for his unrighteousness and improper use of Priesthood authority, Brigham is said to have responded, "What would you have me do?"

I don't know that it is ever my place to stand in judgment of my bishop, unless perhaps he is doing something that is immediately in violation of covenant. Asking for my house is not in violation of any covenant I can think of.

So was plural marriage, as "chastity" was understood prior to its introduction.

This is a very fair point, one to which I cannot respond. I do not understand the whole situation with John C. Bennet, and I don't claim enough familiarity with Church history to give a nuanced take on that. As a member of the First Presidency and an "assistant president" or some such thing, his word would certainly have carried weight with almost any Saint. I could just wave the whole thing off by saying, "God didn't hold the people responsible who followed his wicked teachings", but somehow that doesn't seem satisfactory.

To the Church--no; I agree with you.

To the Bishop--the Bishop is not the Church.

That sounds like saying, "The cop is not the law." It's true, but when the cop tells you to sit down and shut up, even if it seems unfair, you should sit down and shut up.

When Paul railed against the high priest, he was immediately contrite when informed of Ananias' position. His words were not false, but he realized he had no business speaking them against Ananias, even though he was in the right and Ananias in the wrong.

Even the Lord, in referring to the very same scribes and Pharisees whom he often called hypocrites, told his disciples:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

These were men whom the Lord specified numerous times as "hypocrites", yet specifically instructed his disciples to submit to their authority.

Given this, I don't see how we suddenly become justified in questioning the bishop just because we don't like what he asks of us.

I interpret myself as covenanting not to undermine a leader who's doing something I may not agree with; but I don't see a solemn obligation to obey the leader independently of that leader's righteousness.

How do you interpret the Lord's words in Matthew 23:2-3 that I mentioned above?

[Vort]

What good would it do to take over the deed to my house? The church is first and foremost there to provide for the physical wellness of people and the bishop functions primarily in that responsibility.

What would they do with my house anyway? Give it to the homeless? ...and at the same time they create more homelessness?

I have no idea. Does it matter?

[Guest Alana]

I'd think "wow, this is the one time having a non-active husband might pay off" because no way he'd go for it. If he wasn't a factor I'd probably go for it. I've had nothing to my name plenty of times and was alright, with the church watching out for me also, how could I go wrong?

[Misshalfway]

If you wanna know if we would do as the early saints did and give our money and break our dishes and move from town to town for the benefit of the kindgom of God on earth, I think many here wouldn't hesitate to do what was necessary.

Maybe its this particular scenerio. It just feels so incredibly unlikely and against the current procedures of the church to do things that way. If there was a profound need in one local branch and the tithing funds from church headquarters didn't cover it and the bishop came to me and said, "hey. I know you have an extra home. Would you please sell it and donate the funds to this incredible need?" ...Then gosh, you bet I would. In a heart beat. But the church follows certain protocols and tends to protect itself from lawsuits. Why would the church want houses and cars that were unpaid for? It just doesn't make sense. Not in practical terms and not in spiritual ones either.

I think the church is asking us to use our goods and everything we have to serve the church. I don't necessary think doing so means that we literally sign over the deed to our lives to the church itself.

[Guest]

For me, personal revelation confirming the request is required - even if the Prophet himself asks. If it is truly of God, God will not tarry in giving me confirmation. Vort, what you said about, "does the commandment then not apply if you haven't received confirmation?" - the answer is yes. But, that is completely founded on the person asking with a sincere heart at the moment of revelation. God always confirms. To delay the asking, or to not recognize the voice of the confirming spirit makes the transgression, not the disobedience to the unconfirmed commandment when issued.

Therefore, I am ready and willing to hand over my entire possession when the bishop asks and I get spiritual confirmation.

EDIT: I didn't answer the poll because none of the choices match my answer. I don't just MIGHT do it.. but I WILL do it when spiritual confirmation is received.

Edited November 11, 2009 by anatess

[Justice]

I'm not very good with "what if" questions. It's always hard for me to imagine what I would do in a set of circumstances. It seems I always think I won't do something, but end up surprising myself. I think when we look ahead things seems worse or harder than they really are when faced with them.

In any case, as presented, I'd have to say it's not 1. I don't think the Bishop can change Church policy, all he can do is be sure his members follow it to the best of their ability. An authority above the bishop would know if I was to be asked that.

But, maybe I'm just making excuses for my lack of faith.

[beefche]

To me, if I wonder how I would react to this type of question from the bishop, then I have to look at my reactions to his other requests.

As examples, our bishop spoke with each individual family to ask for additional funds for the missionaries from our ward--we had 6 of them and at least a couple (if not more) needed the ward to support them. The stake has asked us to donate even more to fast offerings this year than we normally give. The bishop has asked us to be more diligent in our HT/VT assignments. How we respond to such requests from our bishop would dictate our response to even bigger requests, IMO.

[sensibility]

Well, the valuable things I own consist of one laptop (several years old) and two wedding rings (~£420 value). Everything else is very cheap stuff, which I'd probably keep anyway (clothing, photographs, that sort of thing). So, yes, easy for me to say, but if I were able to recieve personal witness that I should, I would do it.

I wouldn't without a personal confirmation from the Spirit, and I firmly believe that the Lord would give one if He expected me to do it. The bishop is just a man, and men fall -- in our area, we had one Stake Presidency and the majority of a High Council fall away from the Church en masse a few years back. They've now founded their own church. Very nice.

Personal revelation is one of the most precious things we have in this Church, and I don't think the Lord has ever asked us to sign away our right to it. I am a child of God, and He's just as willing to speak to me as He is to speak to the Bishop. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.