LDS endowed members: What would you do?

[Faded]

A move toward literally living the Law of Consecration would probably have to come from the First Presidency, as it would represent a major shift in Church practice. If a bishop had the First Presidency behind him, then I would have no problem with diving in.

However, a bishop doing it on his own authority would be worrisome to say the least. My immediate concern would be that the bishop is acting on his own, and for his own reasons. Are those reasons good ones, or is it a case of a local leader who is opportunistic and intent on stealing the property once it has been signed over? I would be very skeptical of a bishop enacting the Law of Consecration on his own authority.

[Misshalfway]

Hey Vanhin. Glad you are back. We sent you out to get more ice and you never came back.

Good to read you again.

[Vanhin]

Thanks Misshalfway! The ice melted though, so I might have to go get some more.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vort]

Well signing over your property, like a house, to the bishop after he asks is what generally could happen in consecration.

It could also happen in blackmail. That doesn't mean the bishop is blackmailing you.

A bishop asking such a thing does not indicate a return to the united order. That's just your inference. Reasonable, perhaps, but not necessary.

Today since we don't practice LoC we do tithing.

This is simply false. We DO practice the law of consecration. It's one of the covenants we make in the temple, along with the law of chastity.

Are you suggesting that, since we no longer live plural marriage, we don't follow the law of chastity? If not, then by the same token, not following the united order has nothing to do with whether we follow the law of consecration.

[Vort]

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

I have tried many times to clarify what I was asking. If it's not clear by now, I don't think there is much else I can say to ameliorate the situation.

Are you saying that if a bishop came to me without any prior approval through the line of the priesthood authority

I didn't say anything about "prior approval through the line of the priesthood authority".

Look, it's quite simple. Every believing Latter-day Saint on this board would give up all s/he owned if an angel from God appeared to him/her and told him/her to do so. Those who did not obey would either be fools or so attached to their earthly garbage that they in effect care nothing for God.

Most of us would do the same if the prophet himself required it of us. Most of us wouldn't bother going through great spiritual gymnastics to determine whether the prophet was acting as a prophet and speaking as a prophet and breathing as a prophet and eating fried chicken as a prophet before obeying his words. We would, most of us, simply do as instructed. We would consider it part of our covenant duty. The prophet wants our house? Here's our house. Some would balk, certainly, and others would require extensive proof of God's direct involvement before ever consenting, but most of us would simply obey based on our faith (what Miss½ calls "blind faith" or "blind obedience").

But God and the prophet are both, in a sense, remote beings of unquestioned authority. The bishop is a all-too-local being of often-questioned authority; if God's angel or Thomas Monson in person requested that we accept a calling, almost all of us would, yet how many people feel perfectly comfortable turning down their bishop when he issues the calling?

As far as I understand, the bishop by virtue of his position is indeed fully authorized to ask us for any amount of money -- consider the ward budget assignments of yore. We are always free to choose whether to obey or not, but the authority is the bishop's. Could the bishop abuse that authority? Certainly. But that is not the question. The question is: If your local ward's presiding high priest and prophet, aka your bishop, required your earthly stewardship of possessions, would you give it to him? Is that part of your covenant duty, just as surely as if the prophet had asked?

I believe it is. Others disagree. Dan has kindly pointed out that I'm a hypocritical apostate for even asking, which is pretty hard to argue against.

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?

Yes, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

I suppose I just can't grasp a circumstance when this would happen unless the bishop was being deceptive.

I understand that. But this is not about whether or not you are capable of grasping a circumstance when this would happen. This is about whether it's part of your covenant duty to obey the counsel and request of your bishop in temporal matters.

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.

You may assume whatever you like. Again, this is not about your assumptions. This is simply about whether you believe it's part of your covenant duty to do as the bishop asks.

[Vort]

If the bishop told you that the stake needed more fast offering money and that he wanted you to give ten dollars more this month, would you tell him to get back to you in a week, after you had fasted and prayed about it, contacted the stake president and area authority Seventy, and confirmed to your satisfaction that it was in fact the Lord Jesus Christ who was really asking you to pay extra money for fast offerings?

Or would you pull out your wallet and hand him ten bucks?

This is the same question, just on a larger scale.

[beefche]

So, you are trying to determine how others understand temple covenants and in particular understand LoC?

Again, I believe I covenant to live the LoC now. And as such, our response to our bishop's requests to "ordinary" things would be a good yardstick to how we would respond to the "big" stuff.

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.

[ryanh]

This is the same question, just on a larger scale.

I don't agree that it is the same question at all. Very different. I am putting my house to use in building the kingdom through raising of my family, etc, etc. That $10 probably wasn't necessary for that purpose. $10 bucks doesn't have the implications of providing for temporal welfare of others than myself, and is not wrapped up in debt/liens, legal conveyance problems, and the like. You are really mixing apples and oranges Vort, and that is why so many are balking.

Why are you so hung up on the Bishop idea?

[Faded]

If the bishop told you that the stake needed more fast offering money and that he wanted you to give ten dollars more this month, would you tell him to get back to you in a week, after you had fasted and prayed about it, contacted the stake president and area authority Seventy, and confirmed to your satisfaction that it was in fact the Lord Jesus Christ who was really asking you to pay extra money for fast offerings?

Or would you pull out your wallet and hand him ten bucks?

This is the same question, just on a larger scale.

If the Bishop came to you and said that it had been revealed to him by God that your 19 year old daughter was to become his second wife, would you go along with it?

I should hope not!!

The Church has put living Polygamy and the United Order (aka living the Law of Consecration fully) on hold pretty much indefinitely. For that reason, I would be cautious of any local leader trying to re-institute either of them on their own authority.

That doesn't negate your underlying point: We are commanded to live the Law of Consecration NOW to the best of our ability. We are to view everything we own now or may own in the future as the Lord's and not our own. For now, we try to live the principal as well as we can. Ultimately, what a local leader asks of you would be best judged on a case by case basis. Am I willing? Yes, and I should be. Do I have good cause to be skeptical? Yes and I should be.

Ultimately, nothing of the sort will happen without direction from the First Presidency, nor should it.

[Vort]

So, you are trying to determine how others understand temple covenants and in particular understand LoC?

Again, I believe I covenant to live the LoC now. And as such, our response to our bishop's requests to "ordinary" things would be a good yardstick to how we would respond to the "big" stuff.

So then, are you saying that you would do as the bishop requests and sign over your house?

[Vort]

If the Bishop came to you and said that it had been revealed to him by God that your 19 year old daughter was to become his second wife, would you go along with it?

I should hope not!!

Of course not. That would be a violation of covenant, of the law of chastity. I am no adulterer, and would certainly not willingly allow my precious daughter to be one.

The Church has put living Polygamy and the United Order (aka living the Law of Consecration fully) on hold pretty much indefinitely.

This has nothing to do with living the united order. I never mentioned anything about that. In the hypothetical situation, your bishop has not invited you to join any united order. He has just requested that you sign over your house to the Church.

For that reason, I would be cautious of any local leader trying to re-institute either of them on their own authority.

You are making unwarranted assumptions. No one has said anything about the united order.

Ultimately, nothing of the sort will happen without direction from the First Presidency, nor should it.

You do not know this. In any case, it's irrelevant. I'm asking a hypothetical question. Answering it with, "Well, I don't think that's really very likely" is just another way of not answering it.

[Dravin]

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.

In his calling is the critical point. Just because I sustained him in his calling of Bishop doesn't bind me to obeying and sustaining him outside of that purview. If he tells me to read my scriptures more, or asks me to pass the sacrament that is a different issue, something within his calling would be a case of sustaining. Doesn't really matter what the calling is, the fact that I sustained somebody as a teacher doesn't mean that I must now obey them if they command me to never drink milk again, it is outside of their purview.

How is this pertinent you ask? The Bishop has no authority, nor is it within his purview, to require of me my possessions for his own pecuniary gain (or even for the benefit of others if it is against Church Policy). I am not required, even if the act, not drinking milk, or giving over my possessions is not a sin, to be obedient to them outside of their authority simply because I sustained them in a calling.

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.

I guess I just have more faith that the Lord would answer my question (about the Bishop acting properly) than you do. I'm not implying you don't have faith, just not in the Lord answering your question in the particular situation being proposed. Likewise I have less faith than you that my Bishop randomly coming up to me and telling me to give over my possessions out of the blue and in possibly suspicious circumstances is actually operating under proper authority, both from the Lord and from the standpoint of Church Policy.

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.

Then maybe a reformulation of your question might helpful. You opening scenario is vague and leaves room for lots of different scenarios, ones in which the Bishop is within his rights and ones in which he is not. If you mean to ask, "If a priesthood leader required something of you, of which they had right to require, but it was a hard thing being asked, would you do it without seeking confirmation first?" then do so. Or is the question, "Does a Bishop currently have authority to require of you all your possessions at his request?", if it is ask that instead.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Dravin

[Vanhin]

If the bishop told you that the stake needed more fast offering money and that he wanted you to give ten dollars more this month, would you tell him to get back to you in a week, after you had fasted and prayed about it, contacted the stake president and area authority Seventy, and confirmed to your satisfaction that it was in fact the Lord Jesus Christ who was really asking you to pay extra money for fast offerings?

Or would you pull out your wallet and hand him ten bucks?

This is the same question, just on a larger scale.

I would not hand him $10 more per month if he asked me. All he can do is encourage us to be generous, or as generous as we can be. The amount is up to us, according to our own faith and generosity.

Our bishop once taught, that if we increase our fast offerings, the Lord would increase the blessings He has in store for us. That is appropriate, but saying we need everyone to donate exactly $10 more, for example, is not.

Even under the full law of consecration, there are not set amounts. It is the "residue" that individual stewards do not need for their support - the excess - that the Lord wants to consecrate for the poor. (Doctrine and Covenants 42)

Blessings come from voluntarily choosing the right. Sure, the Lord tries our faith sometimes, as with Abraham, but His plans are designed with our agency in mind.

That is the primary difference between the law of consecration and communism, which is counterfeit. The way you know it is counterfeit, is because it is designed to subvert the agency of man. The law of consecration works through the righteous application of personal agency.

...every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family. (D&C 42:32)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vort]

In his calling is the critical point. Just because I sustained him in his calling of Bishop doesn't bind me to obeying and sustaining him outside of that purview. If he tells me to read my scriptures more, or asks me to pass the sacrament that is a different issue, something within his calling would be a case of sustaining. Doesn't really matter what the calling is, the fact that I sustained somebody as a teacher doesn't mean that I must now obey them if they command me to never drink milk again, it is outside of their purview.

How is this pertinent you ask? The Bishop has no authority, nor is it within his purview, to require of me my possessions for his own pecuniary gain (or even for the benefit of others if it is against Church Policy). I am not required, even if the act, not drinking milk, or giving over my possessions is not a sin, to be obedient to them outside of their authority simply because I sustained them in a calling.

I specified that his direction was that you sign over your house to the Church, not to him personally. (Though I am not sure this makes a bit of difference in what the reaction should be, but to reduce listener interference, I included that stipulation.)

I guess I just have more faith that the Lord would answer my question (about the Bishop acting properly) than you do.

And you may well be right. Regardless: What happens if you do not receive an answer to your query, even when you are convinced (as I was) that you are asking within your rights and that you should receive an answer? If no answer is forthcoming, how do you proceed? Do you tell the bishop to wait indefinitely? Do you say, "No answer means no donation"? Or do you say, "My default is to obey unless I have sufficient reason not to"?

Then maybe a reformulation of your question might helpful. You opening scenario is vague and leaves room for lots of different scenarios, ones in which the Bishop is within his rights and ones in which he is not.

I don't understand. How would you determine from my scenario whether or not the bishop was "within his rights"?

[Vort]

I would not hand him $10 more per month if he asked me...saying we need everyone to donate exactly $10 more, for example, is not [appropriate].

So Vanhin has weighed in with a straightforward answer: He would not obey the bishop's request, because he does not believe the bishop has any authority to make such requests.

Thanks, Vanhin. I appreciate your forthright response.

What makes you think the bishop has no such authority? As I understand it, the bishops were responsible for setting the ward budget donations in times past. Do you believe that authority was taken from the office of bishop/ward presiding high priest? Or do you believe that the bishop never actually had authority to set dollar amounts, and that the Church was acting contrary to divine law?

Perhaps more to the point: Is there any man on earth who does have authority to ask you for $10 more per month? If so, who?

That is the primary difference between the law of consecration and communism, which is counterfeit. The way you know it is counterfeit

The way I know what is counterfeit, Vanhin? What is the antecedent to "it"?

[Faded]

Of course not. That would be a violation of covenant, of the law of chastity. I am no adulterer, and would certainly not willingly allow my precious daughter to be one.

So you are saying that anyone who ever had more than one wife was an adulterer? If the First Presidency re instituted plural marriage, how would you react then?

This has nothing to do with living the united order. I never mentioned anything about that. In the hypothetical situation, your bishop has not invited you to join any united order. He has just requested that you sign over your house to the Church.

You are making unwarranted assumptions. No one has said anything about the united order.

You said "your house and everything you own" didn't you. The move towards signing over all your property -- or even the majority of all your property -- to the Church and letting the Church leaders redistribute it is EXACTLY what the United Order is.

You do not know this. In any case, it's irrelevant. I'm asking a hypothetical question. Answering it with, "Well, I don't think that's really very likely" is just another way of not answering it.

YOU ARE THE ONE who is obsessively pushing that the request comes from the Bishop, and insisting that no further authority is necessary. What everyone is trying very hard to get through your thick skull is that a request for the members to give up everything they own and sign it all over to the Church would HAVE TO HAVE more authority than just a local bishop.

You're essentially pushing a flawed hypothetical question, and then arguing against those who would see such a turn of events as a giant red-flag that the bishop in question might be exercising authority he doesn't have for his own selfish purposes and is likely on their way towards apostasy.

And I already gave my answer. If THE CHURCH asked for everything I own, I will gladly give it to them. But that's not the question you asked at all.

[Vort]

So you are saying that anyone who ever had more than one wife was an adulterer?

No. I am saying that if the bishop asked to take my 19-year-old daughter as a second wife, that act would be adulterous.

If the First Presidency re instituted plural marriage, how would you react then?

I don't know. I suppose I would ultimately leave that decision to my daughter.

You said "your house and everything you own" didn't you.

Yes.

The move towards signing over all your property -- or even the majority of all your property -- to the Church and letting the Church leaders redistribute it is EXACTLY what the United Order is.

The move to taking off all your clothes and then getting in bed with someone is EXACTLY what sex is. That doesn't mean that when the doctor asks you to remove all your clothes, s/he wants to have sex with you.

YOU ARE THE ONE who is obsessively pushing that the request comes from the Bishop,

That was my original question. How is that "obsessive"?

and insisting that no further authority is necessary.

What on earth are you talking about? I never said what authority was "necessary". I asked if you would do as your bishop requested.

What everyone is trying very hard to get through your thick skull

Are personal insults really necessary, Faded? I'm rather sensitive about my thick skull, if you must know, and I would appreciate it if you didn't mock me for it.

is that a request for the members to give up everything they own and sign it all over to the Church would HAVE TO HAVE more authority than just a local bishop.

Please demonstrate this. It may be true, but I don't believe it on your say-so.

You're essentially pushing a flawed hypothetical question

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

And I already gave my answer. If THE CHURCH asked for everything I own, I will gladly give it to them. But that's not the question you asked at all.

Is not the bishop an agent for the Church?

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

[beefche]

So then, are you saying that you would do as the bishop requests and sign over your house?

Vort, I think the difference in what many of us are saying is that we agree that the Bishop has stewardship/authority over those who live in the geographical area of the ward. And that includes the temporal welfare of all of those people who live therein.

But, that does not give him the authority to go against church procedures and ask for something that is not within his authority. Bishop asking us to give generously to the fast is within his authority. It is up to us to decide what is considered generous and if we can do that. We each have the stewardship and authority over our family's temporal welfare.

For the bishop to ask us to give all we materially possess is not within church procedure and IMO not his authority. Further, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the scriptures that discuss giving to the bishop doesn't necessarily mean local bishop, but may be referring to the presiding bishop. If the presiding bishop asked us to give all we materially possess, then that would likely be on the instruction of the prophet.

Do I believe that I am under authority of the local bishop? Absolutely. Do I believe that he has the authority to request me to give more than my required 10%? Absolutely. Am I under obligation to do so? Absolutely. But I am also under obligation and authority to care for my family's temporal welfare. If by providing more than the required 10% is placing my family's welfare in jeopardy, then I must take that under consideration and act as I see fit.

I do not think the Lord is asking us to sell all and move to Zion. Zion is where we are and we are commanded to build up our stakes in Zion. By that same token, He is the one who would require for us to sell all we have and if He requires it (whether by the voice of inspiration to me or to my bishop) then I have made covenants to do so.

[StallionMcBeastly]

I will answer this question Saturday afternoon

[Hemidakota]

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?

Based on your spiritual maturity, it is revealed to the level of your understanding when a sincere prayer is offered.

[Dravin]

I specified that his direction was that you sign over your house to the Church, not to him personally. (Though I am not sure this makes a bit of difference in what the reaction should be, but to reduce listener interference, I included that stipulation.)

You are correct, I misread. Though I suppose it is still possible that he then turns around and defrauds the church of the property he got you to donate under false pretenses, heck somebody could have paid him to get you to sign over your car and then distribute it back to them, there are multiple scenarios that can be thought up. Also, as mentioned if it is against Church policy it is outside of his purview to ask regardless of motivations.

And you may well be right. Regardless: What happens if you do not receive an answer to your query, even when you are convinced (as I was) that you are asking within your rights and that you should receive an answer? If no answer is forthcoming, how do you proceed? Do you tell the bishop to wait indefinitely? Do you say, "No answer means no donation"? Or do you say, "My default is to obey unless I have sufficient reason not to"?

My only other experience in something like this would be my decision to go on a mission (interestingly enough, the council I received, from my Bishop, was to pray about it and seek an answer on whether I should go, not to just do it out of obligation) and praying to know if the Church was true. Not sure about the mission, but I wouldn't have reactivated without a confirmation of the truthfulness of the Church and the Book of Mormon. Honestly I don't know, how is that for a cop out?

I don't understand. How would you determine from my scenario whether or not the bishop was "within his rights"?

That's the point, you can't.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Dravin

[Vort]

Sorry, I missed this one.

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?

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

[Vort]

Also, as mentioned if it is against Church policy it is outside of his purview to ask regardless of motivations.

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

My only other experience in something like this would be my decision to go on a mission (interestingly enough, the council I received, from my Bishop was to pray about it and seek an answer on whether I should, not to just do it out of obligation.) and praying to know if the Church was true. Not sure about the mission, but I wouldn't have reactivated without a confirmation of the truthfulness of the Church and the Book of Mormon. Honestly I don't know, how is that for a cop out?

Don't know that it is. Of course, praying about the Book of Mormon is something that the Book of Mormon itself instructs. And if your bishop told you to pray about going on a mission, then as an agent of God he was authorized to do so. I don't recall ever praying about whether I should serve a mission. What would have been the point? I knew my duty.

How would you determine from my scenario whether or not the bishop was "within his rights"?

That's the point, you can't.

And THAT is my point. If you can't determine whether or not the bishop is within his "rights" -- all you know is that he's the bishop and he has made a request of you -- do you obey or do you not obey?

I suppose some might say, "That's an impossible scenario. God would always answer in such a situation." Well, I disagree. But if you believe that, then the question does indeed become unanswerable, because it's impossible. But as I said, I don't believe it's impossible at all.

[Hemidakota]

How many High Priest while attending church Sacrament are not asked for special donation for a worthy cause? I do remember when a Stake rep asked for a donation after Sacrament for the church's special christmas lighting one year. What I did is not to question the man but empty the wallet into his hand.

[Vort]

Vort, I think the difference in what many of us are saying is that we agree that the Bishop has stewardship/authority over those who live in the geographical area of the ward. And that includes the temporal welfare of all of those people who live therein.

But, that does not give him the authority to go against church procedures and ask for something that is not within his authority...For the bishop to ask us to give all we materially possess is not within church procedure and IMO not his authority.

Can you demonstrate this?

Do I believe that I am under authority of the local bishop? Absolutely. Do I believe that he has the authority to request me to give more than my required 10%? Absolutely. Am I under obligation to do so? Absolutely. But I am also under obligation and authority to care for my family's temporal welfare. If by providing more than the required 10% is placing my family's welfare in jeopardy, then I must take that under consideration and act as I see fit.

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.

I do not think the Lord is asking us to sell all and move to Zion.

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?

By that same token, He is the one who would require for us to sell all we have and if He requires it (whether by the voice of inspiration to me or to my bishop) then I have made covenants to do so.

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.