LDS endowed members: What would you do?

[Charlyc]

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?

Then that Bishop has gone wako. Changing the Law of Consecration and hence the Law of Tithing would require First Presidency instructions and a general sustaining vote in General Conference, as happened way back in 1911 (around there) with the introduction of the word of wisdom as a binding commandment.

[Charlyc]

Why do you be....o do.

By the way I love your profile photo -cute

[Charlyc]

Goodness, there is only one vote for "Of course I wouldn't do it! Didn't you hear?..."

Thats what I voted!@$..... Looks like I'm a fish out of water in this forum...... :)

[Charlyc]

But I made Senior Member...yay...or does it mean I'm a 'Mister' now? ie senior is spanish right?

[MarginOfError]

I would be happy to sign over my property so long as the bishop were willing to follow the precedent that was set when the Law of Consecration was administered in the early days of the Church. That is, he would need to meet with me, and hash out what property the Church would subsequently sign over to me in order for me to support my family according to my needs and my wants.

If you look the the History of the Church you'll learn that every transaction like this was documented by two contracts. One signing the property over to the Church, and the other signing at least a portion of that property back to the family. Neither document was signed until the bishop and the member were both fully satisfied with the contents of both documents.

Would I simply sign over the property without a guarantee that I'd have what I needed to care for my family? Absolutely not! Even 150 years ago the Lord seemed to think that was a pretty stupid idea.

[FunkyTown]

By the way I love your profile photo -cute

Yes. Vort's picture is cute. You'd never guess he was a 46 year old dude with that photo.

I am now secretly high-fiving Vort for having suckered in his first client.

[Dravin]

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

Then everything a Bishop does is within his authority of a Bishop? Not everything the prophet does is within the authority of a prophet. Sometimes Presidents of the Church speak and do as the President of the Church, using the keys and authority assigned to them, other times they are speaking or doing as themselves. I don't see why a Bishop would be different.

If we say that a Bishop is always acting in his capacity as a bishop when he does something then we must conclude those Bishops who have been guilty of molestation (or other leadership and other wrongdoing) were acting within the capacity of their office. Personally I disagree, if people are acting outside of their authority and mandate they are acting as themselves, not as agents of the Lord, at such a point their office becomes irrelevant to what they are doing. I have authority to baptize people, if I randomly started grabbing people off the street and baptizing them am I acting as Dravin, melchizedek priesthood holder of the office of Elder on behalf of the Lord? Or am I acting not on behalf of the Lord or my office and simply as Dravin using my office as a pretext to peruse ends that are not the Lords? You may argue that a Bishop has the authority and it is not outside his office, that is correct as long as we are talking about building up the kingdom, the Bishop has no authority to ask of my my possessions so he can sell them and run off to the tables at Vegas to gamble. So if it is one or the other is a very important point.

Bishops are not infallible, and when it comes to something such as asking me everything I own in strange circumstances I'm going to make sure it is the Lord asking me, not the guy who happens to be my Bishop.

He didn't let me know, so I married her. Best decision I ever made.

If you Bishop had told you to marry her you'd have a more analogous situation.

[Vort]

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?

Nope. I intentionally left that part vague. This is not a question about re-instituting the united order among the Saints, for example. It's mostly a question designed to find out whether people think of their temple covenants the way I do, and if not, how they think of them.

[Vort]

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?

Endowed members have made a specific covenant to dedicate their substance and their very lives to the building up of the kingdom of God on earth. Non-endowed members have made only a more general covenant to obey God.

[Vort]

Then that Bishop has gone wako. Changing the Law of Consecration and hence the Law of Tithing would require First Presidency instructions and a general sustaining vote in General Conference, as happened way back in 1911 (around there) with the introduction of the word of wisdom as a binding commandment.

How do you see this as a change in the law of consecration? How do you see this as having anything to do with the law of tithing?

[Vort]

Yes. Vort's picture is cute. You'd never guess he was a 46 year old dude with that photo.

I am now secretly high-fiving Vort for having suckered in his first client.

Charlyc is far from the first to be taken in by my clever ruse. :)

[Vort]

Then everything a Bishop does is within his authority of a Bishop?

Not at all. I simply do not agree with the stark separation of a man from his calling.

As long as the bishop is not asking me to sin, my understanding is that I should sustain him in his calling by obeying him.

Not everything the prophet does is within the authority of a prophet.

True enough, I suppose. So let me ask you: When the First Presidency announced in around 1981 that missions were being shortened to 18 months in length, should we have boycotted them? Many today claim that was not a divine decision -- after all, Church mission forces plummeted in number, and after a couple of years the Church went back to 24 month missions.

My feeling has always been that it really doesn't matter whether Jesus Christ instructed President Kimball to shorten missions to 18 months. Presidents Kimball, Tanner, and Romney were the First Presidency, and therefore they had the authority to make such a decision. The requirement to submit to that decision didn't have anything to do with whether the Father and/or the Son spoke those words to the Prophet.

If you Bishop had told you to marry her you'd have a more analogous situation.

No, you are missing the point of my example. Some have suggested that they would simply pray about it and then follow what the Lord revealed to them. My point was that, sometimes, the Lord lets us choose which path we will follow. My marriage partner was MY choice, not God's. The same might also be true with my decision to sustain my bishop.

Look, I might be wrong. My understanding may well be defective in this area. But it seems that few in this thread have understood and answered the question I have been trying to ask. (Well, except for Dan, who immediately saw me for the lying hypocrite that I am and wisely alerted everyone else.)

[Hemidakota]

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?

We will see this come to past very soon....one thing I can add to this, everything is own by the Savior since He is the Father of this earth. The only thing that is ours, is 'will'.

[Vort]

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?

The core issues I was trying to hit are 1) whether people recognize their temple covenant of consecration as meaning that they literally give all they own and ever will own, as well as their time and very lives, to the building up of God's kingdom on earth, and 2) whether people recognize the bishop as holding the keys to such an instruction, even though he's "only" the bishop and even though he's the guy who, a month before he was called to be bishop, was being instructed by his high priest group leader to be more faithful in his home teaching duties because his families hadn't been visited in two months.

[Guest Alana]

For everyone who replied they would do it after they got their spiritual confirmation.... what if you didn't get a 'yes' or 'no' ? You know, one of those 'it's up to you' things.... then what would you do?

[Just_A_Guy]

As a legalistic matter, Vort, how do we know that the "bishop" spoken of in the scriptures re the Law of Consecration is the local bishop, and not the presiding bishop of the Church?

[Misshalfway]

For everyone who replied they would do it after they got their spiritual confirmation.... what if you didn't get a 'yes' or 'no' ? You know, one of those 'it's up to you' things.... then what would you do?

Then I would look at the circumstances and the patterns that the church and the Lord before I signed on the dotted line. I would try to make sure my bishop wasn't the one I heard about in central Utah back in the '80's who slowly started "receiving" revelations for his people. The kind that got he and his little following exed from the church.

If all indicators felt correct, then I would do my best to fulfill my covenants. But I wouldn't follow blindly. How many times have bishops made judgments errors? It is important to sustain our leaders. It is important to follow their counsel when it is given in righteousness. And I absolutely believe the section 1 scripture listed before that whether it is by the mouth of God or his servants, it is the same. The problem is how can I know if the bishop is speaking for the Lord or speaking as a man if I don't seek the spirit? And I am not sure the Lord is talking about leaders beyond the 12 anyway.

Not all the words spoken by our highest leaders are revelations. Certainly not our lowest. How many times do we have to remind people of that on this very board? We are obligated as faithful, responsible members of the church to obtain and maintain our own revelation on ANY subject or request from the church. If the Lord left the decision up to me without confirmation, and I opted out, please explain where my condemnation would be justified? Or what if my nonmember or lessactive spouse couldn't support my decision?

We are commanded and we covenant to obey. BUT....we are not required to run faster than we have strength or lose our balance in zealousness or leave our common sense at the door. We are blessed even if we want to give and serve but do not have the means to do so.

This scenerio is HIGHLY unlikely and causes this conversation to be incredibly frustrating. The church is a well oiled machine and confined by many of the constraints of local and national law. I don't think God judges the hearts of men the way I feel this thread is leading us to evaluate each others spiritual performance.

Whatever God himself asks me to do, whether it is thru another person or not, WILL BE accompanied by the Holy Spirit. That is the pattern. It's the pattern we teach and its the pattern I see work in my life and the pattern in which I place my trust. That is the great checks and balances of this great religious and very human church effort. I trust God and not the flesh, even though he may use the flesh. The Spirit and only the spirit helps me follow where to go. And I don't think I should have to apologize for handling my obedience and covenant keeping inside this pattern.

[Guest]

For everyone who replied they would do it after they got their spiritual confirmation.... what if you didn't get a 'yes' or 'no' ? You know, one of those 'it's up to you' things.... then what would you do?

Use my own intelligence to discern whether the bishop's request is of God or not. If God left it up to me, then he must think my own intelligence is sufficient to discern the situation. Take Vort's decision to marry, for example, if, when he didn't get an answer, his own intelligence led him to decide he's not going to marry the girl, then that's the answer. So, if my own intelligence led me to believe God asked it of me, then sure deal, bishop gets everything I own.

Trick here is Vort's presumption that just because you question if the bishop's request is of God makes you somehow a disobedient hypocrite. (Sorry Vort if I misunderstood that completely).

[Guest]

No, you are missing the point of my example. Some have suggested that they would simply pray about it and then follow what the Lord revealed to them. My point was that, sometimes, the Lord lets us choose which path we will follow. My marriage partner was MY choice, not God's. The same might also be true with my decision to sustain my bishop.

Vort, it would be analogous if the Bishop asked you to marry the girl. Or, to put a crank in this situation, if the Bishop told you NOT to marry the girl that you would have liked to marry. Would you have walked away from her knowing that God didn't answer your prayer?

There, that's a better analogy.

[Danite]

Well, I'm not sure the Bishop or the church would want to take over all my debts, bills taxes, and insurance I pay, But it sounds great to me. I do think one of the reasons we don't live with all things in common now is because very few people here(USA) own any thing outright. The bank or lenders own most of the stuff people claim they own. Just try not making payments and see what happens. I personally don't see us living with all things in common until just before the Lords return or the millennium.

[Vort]

Trick here is Vort's presumption that just because you question if the bishop's request is of God makes you somehow a disobedient hypocrite. (Sorry Vort if I misunderstood that completely).

Apology accepted. :)

[Vanhin]

Hey folks, it's been a while.

I would not do it. There is not a bishop in the world authorized to require the material wealth that I am the steward of.

The law of consecration is a divine principle whereby men and women voluntarily dedicate their time, talents, and material wealth to the establishment and building up of God’s kingdom. (Guide to the Scriptures: Consecrate, Law of Consecration)

I am the steward of my time, talents, and material wealth, not the bishop under the law that I personally have covenanted to keep. I will be accountable to the Lord for my faithfulness in voluntarily keeping it.

The full law of consecration, as implemented through the United Order, is not authorized today, and has been replaced by the law of tithing. It would require a change to our current long standing doctrines and practices, by the process that makes doctrine binding on members of the Church. The same is true for plural marriage, which is still a part of our canon of scripture, yet not authorized.

In the introduction to the Joseph Smith manual that we have been using for priesthood and RS lessons, it gives the following instruction to teachers:

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). (LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Chapter Detail - Introduction)

Now if the Lord reveals to the Prophet, that we are to try to establish the full law of consecration, as implemented through the United Order, it will not be the bishop asking for my stuff then either. I will willingly volunteer my time, talents, and material wealth, in order to participate in the order, and the bishop will receive the material wealth, and give me back an inheritance.

Till then, I will administer my time, talents, and material wealth, in accordance with the law of consecration.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Charlyc]

Yes. Vort's picture is cute. You'd never guess he was a 46 year old dude with that photo.

I am now secretly high-fiving Vort for having suckered in his first client.

Dude, you're in deep s... now!!

[beefche]

Vort, I guess I'm just a dumb cow, because I simply don't understand your point.

Are you saying that if a bishop came to me without any prior approval through the line of the priesthood authority to request all material possessions be signed over the church, that I am to simply say, "where do I sign?" because of my temple covenants?

I suppose I just can't grasp a circumstance when this would happen unless the bishop was being deceptive. If my possessions were needed, then I would expect that bishop was acting on the instructions from the stake, at the very least. And that likely the stake was acting on instructions from the Area Authority and so on.

[Charlyc]

How do you see this as a change in the law of consecration? How do you see this as having anything to do with the law of tithing?

Well signing over your property, like a house, to the bishop after he asks is what generally could happen in consecration. We don't do it today so hence the need to change it.

Today since we don't practice LoC we do tithing. ie tithing law 'replaces' consecration for now since LoC is what we will follow in celestial kingdom. Not sure about the other kingdoms.