LDS endowed members: What would you do?

[Dravin]

Does the CHI really specify somewhere that bishops are never to ask their ward members for donations?

Don't know, don't own one. Nor am I in possession of other items of policy such as letters and the like. Though I should note there is a difference (in my mind at least) between asking for a donation and everything, including the clothes off your back, legally if not doctrinally, so I can see the church making a distinction. If the Church demanded everything and your kids starved as a result I can imagine something ugly happening.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Dravin

[beefche]

Can you demonstrate this?

Not sure I understand what you're asking here. Demonstrate?

So what happens when you express your concerns to the bishop, and he says, "Yes, I know, but this is still what I'm asking you to do"?

Shortly after the birth of our fourth child, my wife was asked to teach seminary. She had a nursing newborn and three other children she was homeschooling. She explained this to the bishop, and he responded, "Yes, I know, but I really feel that you should do this." She accepted, and it was very, very hard for her. But it was also responsible for two years of the most amazing spiritual growth I have ever seen.

Actually, the same thing happened to me about a month ago. I was asked to serve in a calling in which I knew would be difficult for me to do under my circumstances. When I gave my circumstances that to the priesthood issuing the call and explained why I felt I would be unable to serve, he had the same reply.

Nor was that part of my hypothetical. Nothing about moving to Zion. Nothing about establishing a united order. Just a simple question: Will you sign over your house and property to the Church?

My point was that something very similar to this happened during JS time. Many, many members were asked to go into debt for the church. But my recollection of that history was that it was done by the prophet or someone on the prophet's errand. There is an order to our church. Things that were done previously are done differently today.

My understanding is that you have already given over your possessions to the building of the kingdom of God. It's not a matter of "I'll do it if I am asked"; it's already done from the moment you made your covenant. If my understanding in this is correct, then the bishop is merely requesting a transfer of funds, not dissimilar to asking the high priest group to give $20 of their funds to the Primary.

Honestly, I know my own thoughts/intentions/committment to covenants. I am comfortable in my level of understanding and obedience (of course, there is a need for improvement). And not that you are necessarily asking this of me, but I'm reacting this way, but I don't feel I need to defend my obedience to the covenants I've made. I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion.

[Saguaro]

No, I would not. That makes me one of three who at this time have answered the poll a definitive no. I don't think the Bishop has the authority to make such a request and I don't interpret my temple covenants to mean that I should give up everything I own at the drop of a hat. Others have different interpretations, and I respect that.

Vort, don't take this as a personal attack, but I think it's a dumb question. Questions like this cause judgmentalism between the righteous ones who say yes, and the apostates who say no, and everyone else along the spectrum.

[Tarnished]

I would have to pray about it and counsel with my husband, in fact we would have to pray about it together. And yes it would depend on what answer we got from God. I do believe in having faith and in following the counsel of priesthood leaders, but I also believe that we need to seek for God’s counsel in things as well, especially when it might affect the wellbeing of our family.

When I was in college I had a bishop who counseled me not to marry my current husband, he told me that if I did that bad things would happen and I would never be happy and would regret it for the rest of my life. I had two choices, I could either take his counsel and follow it without question or I could take it to the Lord and see what answer I received. I did take it to the Lord and the answer I got was not a “Do not marry this man.” But rather a “The time is not yet right to marry this man.” About half a year later I found myself praying about my boyfriend again and this time the answer was, “Yes, he is the right one to marry.” It was a strong answer but it was the opposite of what my bishop had counseled me. I went with the counsel that God had given me and not with the counsel that my bishop had given me.

What I am trying to say with this story is that when we are given counsel from our leaders we should take it to the Lord so as to obtain a witness for ourselves of the truthfulness. This is much like polygamy, if the prophet announced tomorrow that polygamy was being reinstituted into the church would I immediately accept it? No, I would have to pray about it first and receive a witness. It is the same with giving up our house and possessions. When my husband and I were asked to give more in fast offering we prayed about it. I think everything should be taken to the Lord, I don’t think it weakens our faith but rather It think that it helps to strengthen our faith that we are willing to search things out on our own.

If you would be willing to give up your home and possessions right away then that is good for you, each of us lives the gospel in our own way. I know one family who chooses not to eat sugar because they feel it is against the word of wisdom, this is their choice, it is how they choose to live the gospel. The way I figure it, as long as we all end up in the same place does it matter if you take things on faith and I pray first?

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps we don't. But since we are not talking about the united order (which I'm pretty sure is the topic of the scriptures you're referring to), it does not matter. We are not re-establishing the united order; . . .

In the temple we make a covenant, but that covenant is specifically made subject to further explanations as given in the Doctrine and Covenants. I'm not comfortable dismissing the D&C from this discussion just by labeling it as pertaining to the United Order and not the Law of Consecration per se; at least not until I'm more adequately informed as to how the two principles differ and which scriptures are referring to which principles.

. . . your bishop has simply asked you to give your substance to the Church. Do you obey, or not?

OK, not trying to be snarky here, but . . .

Why must I?

As I've said earlier, I don't doubt that there are spiritual benefits to taking a few steps (or even a giant leap) into the dark. I further agree that it's generally a bad thing if we meet every request from our bishop with a smug "you can't do that."

But what is it that makes allegiance to my bishop (right or wrong, to whatever end), as a matter of covenant, one and the same thing as allegiance to the Church?

And yeah, I realize we could extend this to asking where the Bishop gets his authority to ask me to put up chairs on Saturday night, or add an extra ten bucks to my fast offering. And my reply would be that the covenant of which you speak has a clear and defined purpose (as explained in the temple), and those activities clearly and proximately promote that purpose.

And then the question becomes, whose prerogative is it to judge the "purpose" of the sacrifice? Does it make a difference if the bishop is asking for "sacrifice" versus outright sinful behavior? What if the nature of the sacrifice seems to turn it into sinful behavior? (by forcing me to give up the welfare of my family, or what have you.) Am I then justified in at least taking a step back; asking whether the required action will really further the cause of Zion and, if so, why isn't the Church at large on board with this particular bishop; and seeking personal revelation on the subject?

Edited November 12, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Vort, don't take this as a personal attack, but I think it's a dumb question. Questions like this cause judgmentalism between the righteous ones who say yes, and the apostates who say no, and everyone else along the spectrum.

You've been talking to DapperDan, haven't you?

[Justice]

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.

I really don't have a problem with answering questions honestly. If I felt Vort were up to foul play, as you suggest, all I would have to do is not respond.

However, questions like this can help us center ourselves on where we are. It was interesting to study my thought process on where I ended up and how I got there. I can debate myself rather well. However, I feel if we are honest with ourselves in our responses, we can come to know ourselves a little better... and maybe make some necessary changes.

[Vort]

In the temple we make a covenant, but that covenant is specifically made subject to further explanations as given in the Doctrine and Covenants. I'm not comfortable dismissing the D&C from this discussion just by labeling it as pertaining to the United Order and not the Law of Consecration per se; at least not until I'm more adequately informed as to how the two principles differ and which scriptures are referring to which principles.

You appear to have misunderstood me. Perhaps I explained it poorly. This question is all about the law of consecration, but has nothing to do with the united order. By all means, use all of the teachings on the law of consecration in your decision. Just don't confuse those teachings with specifications of living a united order.

In the same vein, I might say, Use all scripture about living the law of chastity that you can find, but don't focus on specifics of the workings of plural marriage. We do not live plural marriage (or the united order), but we are fully under obligation to live the covenant of the law of chastity (and of consecration).

OK, not trying to be snarky here, but . . .

Why must I?

No snark taken. The simplest answer is, you don't have to. If you did have to, it wouldn't make much of a question.

But what is it that makes allegiance to my bishop (right or wrong, to whatever end), as a matter of covenant, one and the same thing as allegiance to the Church?

This is a truly excellent question. I think that it really hits near the heart of what I'm trying to ask. Perhaps it deserves its own thread.

[Vort]

I really don't have a problem with answering questions honestly. If I felt Vort were up to foul play, as you suggest, all I would have to do is not respond.

However, questions like this can help us center ourselves on where we are. It was interesting to study my thought process on where I ended up and how I got there. I can debate myself rather well. However, I feel if we are honest with ourselves in our responses, we can come to know ourselves a little better... and maybe make some necessary changes.

Thanks for your charitable attitude, Justice.

Ha! Ha! I really put one over on him! I guess DapperDan missed out on warning Justice! Now he's MINE, ALL MINE! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Uh...did I just say that out loud?

[Vort]

Vort, don't take this as a personal attack, but I think it's a dumb question. Questions like this cause judgmentalism between the righteous ones who say yes, and the apostates who say no, and everyone else along the spectrum.

You've been talking to DapperDan, haven't you?

Not a personal attack, but that's really stupid? Well, okay, since you told me not to take it as a personal attack, I guess now I have to assume it isn't.

But how do you think asking a simple hypothetical question "cause judgmentalism"? The question itself is "dumb" because it inspires evil? It causes the "righteous" who say "yes" to think evil of the "apostates" who say "no"?

Funny, as one of the "righteous" who said "yes", I didn't think of any of those who said "no" as apostates. In fact, the only ones I was at all tempted to think less of were those who called names or otherwise berated my supposed "judgmentalism". (Yes, I admit, being falsely accused of "judgmentalism" does indeed tend to put me in a judgmental frame of mind. Bitterly ironic. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

[Just_A_Guy]

No snark taken. The simplest answer is, you don't have to. If you did have to, it wouldn't make much of a question.

And I suppose (to be a bit self-deprecating):

The Telestial ask, "why must I?"

The Terrestrial ask, "why should I?"

The Celestial ask, "why wouldn't I?"

[Moksha]

. 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.

Makes me want want to start a poll and ask if people would prefer a banana split to a pogo stick. That way I could find out if their thinking was just like mine.

[Vort]

Makes me want want to start a poll and ask if people would prefer a banana split to a pogo stick. That way I could find out if their thinking was just like mine.

Sorry, Moksha, I don't understand. Is there something inherently ridiculous about trying to find out how others' though processes differ from one's own?

[TruthSeekerToo]

This reminds me of a stake leadership meeting I sat in several months ago (spring?). It was put on by the regional leadership and they had a nice power point from SLC.

I took notes, but I specifically recall the statement being made that if the bishop asked for your car that we were all under covenant to give it to him. (the example was say you have 3 cars and someone in your ward has no car. The bish has authority to ask you to give your "extra" car to that person)

I don't have a house, so I can't really give a genuine answer. I would be one that would greatly benefit from the LoC.

[Moksha]

Sorry, Moksha, I don't understand. Is there something inherently ridiculous about trying to find out how others' though processes differ from one's own?

Not at all, I was just surprised to see it stated as a reason for the poll. Many polls are to get a sense of where people are at on any given topic. However, it is always nice when we find out we are not totally alone in our sector of the baseball field. I sure would feel less odd to know that some percentage of my fellow posters also prefer a banana split in that hypothetical poll of banana split versus a pogo stick.

BTW, I think your question is great. Sure got a lot of us thinking.

[Faded]

If my hypothesis is in fact flawed, then you are right. Please establish that I am in error.

The scenario you are offering is flawed because there are simply no details.

The bishop just up and asks you to sign over everything you own and that's it. Well, that's what I call a highly flawed scenario because you're leaving it up to the imagination of the reader to fill in all of the other details.

What would I do if the Bishop just randomly asked for everything I own to be signed over to him? I'd write a letter to Church Headquarters expressing my concerns, that's what I'd do. If I got something back from them assuring me that my Bishop was not trying to pull some scam and that they approve, then that would be one thing. But consider this -- we are living the Law of Consecration, at least theoretically. I am the steward of my property, which I have covenanted belongs to the Lord and His Kingdom.

Would it demonstrate good stewardship to flipantly just sign over my entire stewardship to the first local leader who asks? That would be an excellent example of irresponsible stewardship over the Lord's property. I've got no idea whether my family will have a roof over their heads, nor whether my house will become the new housing for an apostate group that the Bishop starts up the following week.

Is not the bishop an agent for the Church?

What level of agent for the Church would you require before deciding to obey?

Because the United Order is not currently instituted in the Church and is not the common practice, I would need to have some reassurance that this is not a local leader going apostate and trying to take the Ward for everything they're worth before leaving the Church. As an agent of the Church, he might very well sign whatever he gathers over to himself and that would be that. A Bishop can act on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on a number of other things, so it's conceivable that he could transfer everything into his own name and that it would still be legal and upheld by the courts.

You're scenario is flawed simply because you're being unrealistic. Name for me an example within the past 50 years where a Bishop did this (asked the members of his ward to sign over everything they owned to the Church) and it was 100% acceptable to the General Authorities? There are a number of cases where bishops have willfully abused their position, stolen what they could, and left the Church -- so as a wise steward of the Lord's property, why on earth would I sign everything over without a second thought?

The qualifier that you seem to be dodging for whatever reason: "What if the First Presidency asked you to sign over everything you own to the Church?" I think that is the gist of what you're getting at: How willing are members to live the Law of Consecration? They covanented to live it in the temple, but how willing are they to put their money where their mouth is.

The focus on the request coming only from a local bishop is just a unintended distraction to your point. But by all means, correct me if I'm wrong here.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Faded

[Connie]

Vort, if i may ask a question, your scenario does not mention whether or not this house, car, etc., is in excess (as in have more than one) or not. Do you feel that would matter or not? Why or why not? Okay, so maybe that was two questions.

[Faded]

Vort, if i may ask a question, your scenario does not mention whether or not this house, car, etc., is in excess (as in have more than one) or not. Do you feel that would matter or not? Why or why not? Okay, so maybe that was two questions.

Connie I believe Vort was quite specific: "What if your bishop told you to sign everything you own over to the Church?"

By "everything" I'm assuming that he means "everything." Not surplus.

[Carl62]

I asked my nephew if he would give all that he has over to the bishop and he said that he would gladly do this at any time with any bishop that would ask him. He was wondering though, what the bishop is going to do when he gives him his $45,000 college debt.

[Just_A_Guy]

I asked my nephew if he would give all that he has over to the bishop and he said that he would gladly do this at any time with any bishop that would ask him. He was wondering though, what the bishop is going to do when he gives him his $45,000 college debt.

Simple--they give him my $90,000 college debt. Redistribution at its finest!

[Carl62]

simple--they give him my $90,000 college debt. Redistribution at its finest!

lol!

[Vort]

The scenario you are offering is flawed because there are simply no details.

That is not a flaw. That is by design.

The bishop just up and asks you to sign over everything you own and that's it. Well, that's what I call a highly flawed scenario because you're leaving it up to the imagination of the reader to fill in all of the other details.

Why is that flawed? The point is, you are not told what's going on. You are simply asked to sign your property over to the Church. It's a simple scenario.

What would I do if the Bishop just randomly asked for everything I own to be signed over to him?...Would it demonstrate good stewardship to flipantly just sign over my entire stewardship to the first local leader who asks?...Because the United Order is not currently instituted in the Church and is not the common practice, I would need to have some reassurance that this is not a local leader going apostate and trying to take the Ward for everything they're worth before leaving the Church.

Yet I specified that this was not the case.

A Bishop can act on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on a number of other things, so it's conceivable that he could transfer everything into his own name and that it would still be legal and upheld by the courts.

No, it is really not conceivable. Otherwise, there would certainly have been numerous cases of bishops enriching themselves from the Church's coffers, penalty-free.

You're scenario is flawed simply because you're being unrealistic. Name for me an example within the past 50 years where a Bishop did this (asked the members of his ward to sign over everything they owned to the Church) and it was 100% acceptable to the General Authorities?

So, then, I assume you are equally against anyone asking any such hypothetical question as, "Suppose Jesus appeared before you and asked you to home teach the lonely widow up the street," because of course you cannot name an instance in the last 50 years that that has happened.

Right?

There are a number of cases where bishops have willfully abused their position, stolen what they could, and left the Church -- so as a wise steward of the Lord's property, why on earth would I sign everything over without a second thought?

The only reason I could imagine is that you believe you have covenanted to do so.

The qualifier that you seem to be dodging for whatever reason: "What if the First Presidency asked you to sign over everything you own to the Church?" I think that is the gist of what you're getting at: How willing are members to live the Law of Consecration? They covanented to live it in the temple, but how willing are they to put their money where their mouth is.

The focus on the request coming only from a local bishop is just a unintended distraction to your point. But by all means, correct me if I'm wrong here.

You are wrong here. Consider this the correction you requested.

[Vort]

Vort, if i may ask a question, your scenario does not mention whether or not this house, car, etc., is in excess (as in have more than one) or not. Do you feel that would matter or not? Why or why not? Okay, so maybe that was two questions.

Nope, not excess. Just everything you own.

[MarginOfError]

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

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.

I have to adamantly disagree with you here. Under the Law of Consecration (of which the United Order was a manifestation), all members of the Church were asked to yield their property to the stewardship of the bishop. That is, upon your baptism, the Church would start preparing you to sign over your property. It was quickly learned that the general membership wasn't prepared to do this without some kind of spiritual maturation and preparation.

The law of tithing was given to prepare people to live the higher law. Tithing is to consecration, what the Aaronic Priesthood is to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The Law of Consecration is the last covenant we make in the endowment. It is the last covenant that prepares us to enter into the presence of the Lord. There is no statement that I am aware of that states that those who take upon themselves the temple covenants are exempt from living the law of consecration.

The Church teaches that the Lord's storehouse "includes the time, talents, skills, compassion, consecrated materials, and financial resources of faithful Church members. The bishop is the Lord's agent in using these resources to assist the poor and needy (see D&C 42:34). As he uses these resources to care for the needy in the Lord's way, both givers and receivers are blessed (see D&C 104:16; Acts 20:35)." (CHI, 18). The bishop is absolutely within his stewardship to ask you to give your property to the Church for the building of God's kingdom.

Something else that must be considered when talking about consecration, however, is that the Church has never absorbed property without a purpose. When a person consecrated property in the 1800's it was very common for that person to retain possession of the property (livestock, land, etc) and to tend to it unless or until the bishop needed to provide it to someone else. The Church has never taught that property should simply be yielded to the Church at the expense or to the detriment of the person doing the yielding or his/her family. Most commonly, the family would consecrate all their possessions and the bishop would only accept that which exceeded their wants and needs in order to give that excess to a family or individual who was in need.

The Law of Consecration is very much required by the Lord of those who have made a covenant to live it. When our bishop asks us for property, the discussion we have with him should either be along these lines or be a simple yes.

[Faded]

There are a number of cases where bishops have willfully abused their position, stolen what they could, and left the Church -- so as a wise steward of the Lord's property, why on earth would I sign everything over without a second thought?

The only reason I could imagine is that you believe you have covenanted to do so.

Sorry, my mistake, I thought it was unintentional that you were saying it's on the Bishop's authority alone. If that is the core of what you're proposing then I think the answer is obvious.

I covenanted to consecrate everything I have to the building up of the Kingdom of God on Earth. You are essentially forcing a scenario upon the discussion that equates obedience to your covenants to unbelievable stupidity.

I did not covenant to be an idiot. What good is everything I own to the Kingdom of God if it is filched away by an apostatizing Bishop? Can it help to build up the Kingdom of God if it is no longer in the possession of any Church member and is instead possessed by a group that actively seeks to draw members away from the Church?

If you cannot provide a single example in a range of time as broad as 50 years, then I think we can confidently put this one to bed. There is no realism whatsoever to your hypothetical scenario. You've created a scenario that would only have one possible explanation: Only a Bishop who is up to no good is going to pull this one with nothing but his local authority to back him up. The situation you postulate: The Bishop asks for EVERYTHING YOU OWN to be donated post-haste without explanation. Not a superfluous car or bicycle or even an extra house (for those who are so blessed.) You're saying "give me everything, right now, without delay, no explanation."

God doesn't command us to be blithering idiots, nor is he going to be pleased with us for letting ourselves be robbed blind by a wicked man. You can call if faith if you want, but that's the stuff that leads to enmasse Koolaid drinking parties and things like that. There's a big difference between being faithful and gullible.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Faded