LDS endowed members: What would you do?

[Vort]

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.

Why do you believe this? From personal experience, or is this your understanding of how God always operates? I have heard numerous experiences that suggest the opposite -- that God does not always provide confirming knowledge up front. Even Adam performed sacrifices for "many days" before an angel appeared to him and gave him insight into what he had been commanded to do.

[Misshalfway]

I have no idea. Does it matter?

Yeah. It would. If I was gonna be homeless and go and explain to my spouse and kids why the church was taking our house and the car I need to get to my job and not providing for our needs in some other way, I would need to have something to inspire the necessary faith to live in my mothers basement. NO! To muster enough faith to first make the phone call. I would also want to ask if the church had changed its perpective on sound wellfare principles.

BTW....whose responsibility is it that I am not deceived?

We need to obey and sacrifice and learn those stretching lessons. But we must do so inside of wisdom. We are expected to be wise stewards and so is the church.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Misshalfway
one more thought.....

[deseretgov]

I thin kwe need a brush up on what happens within the Law of Consecration. People keep talking about giving their property to the church as if it will leave them homeless. I'll post some scriptures here in a bit but first I have a couple errands to run.

[Vort]

We need to obey and sacrifice and learn those stretching lessons. But we must do so inside of wisdom. We are expected to be wise stewards and so is the church.

These are all very good words, with which it is easy to agree -- indeed, almost impossible to disagree. But they don't really answer the core issues that I alluded to earlier.

[Just_A_Guy]

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?"

And we're back to that slippery slope--when is something "too big" to ask?

I'd gladly be--heck, I have been--browbeaten by church leaders for something that I frankly felt wasn't my fault, and I took it; because I respected the authority and frankly my reputation wasn't that big a deal to me.

My house would be.

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.

Which covenants, exactly? Only temple covenants, and no more? More general standards of living the gospel as embraced in, say, the TR interview or the Articles of Faith? Scriptural and cultural standards about abuse of power? These are hard questions.

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.

I appreciate your candor. Yeah, the "God didn't hold them accountable" is a powerful argument and probably true in the eternities. But it doesn't erase the damage caused in the here-and-now.

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.

I sit down and shut up because the cop has a gun and a taser; and because I now the law offers me adequate material remedies for the cop's bad behavior. Is that how we want to start running the Church?

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.

True, but in the next breath Paul professed Pharasaism--a theological position diametrically opposed to Ananias, by whose office I presume to have been a Sadducee.

At any rate, if this submission to the Jewish authorities was supposed to have been absolute then how did Christianity continue to exist in the face of the Jewish attempts to suppress it? Quite simply: because the Jewish leadership was exceeding its God-given authority, and the Christians knew it.

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

Quite simply that the scribes and Pharisees weren't then telling the Christians to do anything contrary to Jesus' teachings (as offered by Himself or by the Holy Spirit).

When the Christians were ultimately forced to choose between personal revelation and the uninspired ecclesiastical leadership--they chose the former.

(Of course, the next question is whether giving up my house violates Jesus' teachings. And my answer would be "yes, to the extent that it leaves me without the ability to care for my family". If, as part of the deal, the bishop offers other (more modest) lodgings, it becomes a lot harder to say "no".)

Edited November 11, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Misshalfway]

I thin kwe need a brush up on what happens within the Law of Consecration. People keep talking about giving their property to the church as if it will leave them homeless. I'll post some scriptures here in a bit but first I have a couple errands to run.

I think that is my whole point. The church wouldn't cause a person to become homeless. It would be against its objectives. If the law of consecration came back, of course there would be no homelessness as that is part of the law's objective. And if it came back then it would come from the prophet himself and the whole church would make a shift and requests like this would be expected and make senes. If one lone bishop asked this and it didn't come straight from SLC, then houston, we have a big problem.

[Guest]

Why do you believe this? From personal experience, or is this your understanding of how God always operates? I have heard numerous experiences that suggest the opposite -- that God does not always provide confirming knowledge up front. Even Adam performed sacrifices for "many days" before an angel appeared to him and gave him insight into what he had been commanded to do.

Both. I'm a convert to the church, so yes, I am a personal witness to the confirming spirit. I have experiences both when I listened and when I didn't listen with all the consequences of both. Joseph Smith's spiritual journey starts with the scripture saying, If any of you lacks wisdom... you ask. If God is not providing confirmation there is a reason - and the answer is never to act without confirmation. The answer is always to pray some more or make yourself worthy to receive such confirmation. When Adam did not get an answer, he prayed some more until he did get it. He did not "just do it".

Once you do receive confirmation, to deny it is a very serious sin. It's about the only thing that can cause man to be cast out into outer darkness - to have received confirmation then to turn your back on the Christ.

So yes, when the bishop asks and I receive confirmation, I'm not even going to bother with the why's and wherefore's or if the law of consecration is back on the land or whatever else... you sign over your property and that would be that.

Edited November 11, 2009 by anatess

[bytor2112]

Two thoughts.....

1. Why would the church want to assume my mortgage?

2. I would get in line behind the other faithful....near the end of the line.

Seriously, it would have to be a message from the Prophet before I would do it.

[jadams_4040]

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?

What good would that do for the lords work if none of us had anything? {because we donated everything} I would definately seek answers.

[Wingnut]

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?

If my bishop asked of me what you're posing in your hypothetical, I would tell him that I wanted to pray about it first. If he pushed and said "No, do it now," then I would be suspicious. I don't think that's out of line. It's appropriate to pray about a calling or other assignment prior to just saying yes, isn't it? Especially if one feels uneasy about it.

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?

Well, sort-of. I think you have the essence of what I'm saying, but you're taking it to an extreme. I don't think it's at all out of line for us to pray for personal confirmation about what we hear in Conference, but it's not required, and not everyone does it. But there's nothing wrong with it. Do people believe the Book of Mormon is true just because the book itself says so, or the missionaries say so? No, they seek their own witness of the truth.

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.

Amen!

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.

Yeah, I mean, he could be under the Imperius Curse or something!

I think it should also be pointed out that the Law of Consecration doesn't leave anyone (the givers/donators included) out in the cold. Each person is cared for according to his/her needs. No one would be forced into homelessness.

[Moksha]

This reminds me of a similar question on another forum about what one would do if your Stake President asked you to strap on a bomb pack and detonate it in the middle of a crowd.

My response was that such a request needs to be filtered through one's own sense of whether God would ask such a thing.

[Dravin]

I'm rather tempted to just say yes, I don't own much, and what I do own doesn't even cover my debts. Though I suppose those are school loans, I doubt the Bishop wants me to sign them over to the Church as well. It may also be a little loophole of me, but if I sign my possessions over to the Church I expect the Church would rectify the situation if it turns out that Bishop Brown is acting outside of his authority.

If I received confirmation that the Bishop was not exercising unrighteous dominion, I would. I have covenanted to give my all in the building of the Kingdom of God, I have not however covenanted to give my possessions over to anyone who asks nor for any other circumstances. Bishop Brown can call upon me to live my covenants and give my possessions over to the building of the Kingdom. Bob Brown, the guy who lives three streets down can call on me to sign all my property over to him (to build his Kingdom), but there is no covenant binding me to do such. Therefore it is important to know who is asking, Bob Brown, or the Lord (through Bob Brown in his capacity as Bishop in the Lord's Kingdom). A bishop is a bishop only when he was acting as such after all.

Asking for confirmation before you answer the Bishops request for time and talents, our time and talents are also covenanted, isn't generally seen as a violation of covenant or otherwise incorrect. I'm surprise to see asking for confirmation before answering such a request for possessions to be seen as such.

P.S. I'm not sure if I should answer the divine manifestation option. Technically a spiritual confirmation would qualify as such but the wording conjures images of demanding to see angels first before one agrees.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Dravin

[Jbs2763]

sure but whats the church gonna do with a wore out ford and a floor board with several hundred empty coke bottles in it?

[DapperDan]

Vort,

I have read this poll, voted and studied the responses. And I've come to one conclusion: this poll is stupid. It is a fools poll, manufactured like the Pharisess to catch people in their words so that they may stand in judgement of others.

Shame on you.

[Vort]

Vort,

I have read this poll, voted and studied the responses. And I've come to one conclusion: this poll is stupid. It is a fools poll, manufactured like the Pharisess to catch people in their words so that they may stand in judgement of others.

Shame on you.

By golly, Dan. What can I say? You got me.

Thanks for telling me how awful and shameful I am for standing in judgment of others.

[Vort]

This reminds me of a similar question on another forum about what one would do if your Stake President asked you to strap on a bomb pack and detonate it in the middle of a crowd.

Seriously, Moksha? You think a question asking if you would obey a bishop's request to give your substance to the Church is similar to a question asking if you would obey a stake president's request to murder innocent people in a suicide attack?

I'm thinking that you cannot possibly be serious. But that leads me to wonder why you would make such a statement?

My response was that such a request needs to be filtered through one's own sense of whether God would ask such a thing.

God asked the rich young man to sell everything he had, give it to the poor, and follow him. So we already know as historical fact that God might indeed ask such a thing.

(In contrast, I have never heard of God asking someone to strap a bomb on himself and go blow up a crowd of people.)

[Vort]

Vort,

I have read this poll, voted and studied the responses. And I've come to one conclusion: this poll is stupid. It is a fools poll, manufactured like the Pharisess to catch people in their words so that they may stand in judgement of others.

Shame on you.

By golly, Dan. What can I say? You got me.

Thanks for telling me how awful and shameful I am for standing in judgment of others. Without your judgment against me, I might never have known.

Also, since you thought I was being judgmental, thanks so much for pointing it out in open forum so everyone else could enjoy your judgment of me. That is just so much better than mentioning it to me in private.

You're my hero, Dan.

[lost87]

(In contrast, I have never heard of God asking someone to strap a bomb on himself and go blow up a crowd of people.)

Perhaps there is no account of God asking someone to strap a bomb to themselves to kill people in the scriptures...then again, that COULD be because there weren't really bombs back then, IDK, just a thought. On the flip side though, there are countless points in the scriptures where God does indeed ask someone to kill another...so perhaps Moksha's comparison isn't as ridiculous stretch as you paint it to be?

in Dan's defense though, it does just kinda seem like a poll brought up to argue a point endlessly, no matter what a person posts it seems there are a series of broken down responses point by point in an attempt to prove wrong or convince of alternate beliefs...people are giving their honest beliefs, it seems that one of the common differences is the belief that A) a bishop has the authority to make a request of that magnitude on his own, or B) a request such as the one you pose would need to come from higher up, because it is outside of the bishops responsibilities. I tend to agree with the latter of the two options. A bishop has stewardship of his ward only, and I can think of no circumstance where it would even be conceivable for this "what if" to occur...that perhaps is part of the danger of "'what if's" we get so wrapped up in the diferences of opinion and thinking that one way must be better than another, or there is only one "right" answer, and we forget that the entire situation to begin with is a hypothetical and impossible circumstance...whats the point in going on and on to prove that one side or the other is right when the question is fake anyways? I think this thread is taking the whole "what if" a little far...

Edited November 12, 2009 by lost87

[Vort]

If I received confirmation that the Bishop was not exercising unrighteous dominion, I would. I have covenanted to give my all in the building of the Kingdom of God, I have not however covenanted to give my possessions over to anyone who asks nor for any other circumstances.

True enough. In fact, doing so would be exercising a foolish stewardship, indeed.

But the bishop is not "anyone". I believe he is authorized to ask such a thing.

Bishop Brown can call upon me to live my covenants and give my possessions over to the building of the Kingdom. Bob Brown, the guy who lives three streets down can call on me to sign all my property over to him (to build his Kingdom), but there is no covenant binding me to do such.

I don't believe God splits a man into two people when he calls them to a leadership position.

Therefore it is important to know who is asking, Bob Brown, or the Lord (through Bob Brown in his capacity as Bishop in the Lord's Kingdom). A bishop is a bishop only when he was acting as such after all.

Asking for confirmation before you answer the Bishops request for time and talents, our time and talents are also covenanted, isn't generally seen as a violation of covenant or otherwise incorrect. I'm surprise to see asking for confirmation before answering such a request for possessions to be seen as such.

You misunderstand me, Dravin. I see nothing wrong with asking for confirmation; on the contrary, I think it would be a near-mandatory act. But God does not always give us the answers we seek at the time we want them.

When I decided I wanted to marry my girlfriend, I asked God to confirm the choice I was making. Shockingly (at the time -- unsurprising in retrospect), God DID NOT ANSWER ME! I asked; I begged; I fasted and prayed earnestly. I might as well have been praying to a statue. Finally, I told God, "I'm gonna marry her. If that's a problem, let me know." He didn't let me know, so I married her. Best decision I ever made.

So what if God didn't tell you? Suppose he simply let you decide for yourself whether you wanted to obey the bishop's seemingly absurd request -- but one which the bishop is fully authorized to make. You pray to know if the Lord wants you to give all your money to the Church, and receive no answer. You pray that the Lord will let you know if it's wrong to do so, and receive no answer.

What do you do?

For myself, I think my covenants direct that I obey my bishop, certainly in a matter as temporal as money. But not everyone agrees with me. I'm curious to know the thought processes of those who don't agree, and how they respond to what I see as problems in not doing as the bishop asks.

(Or perhaps I'm really just sitting back and being judgmental on everyone, as Dan has so bravely opined. I think we really do owe Dan a debt of gratitude. Thanks, Dan!)

[Misshalfway]

These are all very good words, with which it is easy to agree -- indeed, almost impossible to disagree. But they don't really answer the core issues that I alluded to earlier.

What issues dear? The miniscule ones that separate the 94% of the faithful people who answered the top two options of your poll? The ones who said that they would hand over everything with only a confirmation of the spirit to support the decision?

[Traveler]

Just in case anyone is interested and paying attention -- none of the poll answers reflect the covenant and law of consecration which deals with the divine understanding of stewardship as opposed to the world’s understanding of ownership.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Just in case anyone is interested and paying attention -- none of the poll answers reflect the covenant and law of consecration which deals with the divine understanding of stewardship as opposed to the world’s understanding of ownership.

The Traveler

What would be an answer that you believe would correctly reflect your understanding of the covenant and law of consecration?

[Moksha]

Seriously, Moksha? You think a question asking if you would obey a bishop's request to give your substance to the Church is similar to a question asking if you would obey a stake president's request to murder innocent people in a suicide attack?

Of course the the content is different. What was similar was my answer to both questions. My answer was that such a request needs to be filtered through one's own sense of whether God would ask such a thing.

You cannot blow up a crowd by giving all that you have, the worldy goods may even be put to good use, but once again is it something God would truly want?

[Moksha]

Vort, was there a missing part to your original question that would have all the money collected put into a communal fund that would take care of all the members?

[Jamie123]

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?

I'm curious Vort - why are you confining this question to endowed members?

Do non-endowed members have some special immunity from obeying their bishop?