LDS endowed members: What would you do?

[MarginOfError]

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.

If Vort were implying that the bishop were asking you to sign everything you own directly over to him, then yeah, that would be completely stupid. It would also be against Church policy. The bishop is not allowed to gather any donations, goods, or services directly. It must be donated to the Church, in which case your ward clerk will make a record of the donation. Once it has been donated to the Church, the bishop is unable to then direct it to himself unless he has the stake president's approval.

I think it would be best to keep this discussion within the known framework for donating goods, materials, and services to the Church.

[Faded]

If Vort were implying that the bishop were asking you to sign everything you own directly over to him, then yeah, that would be completely stupid. It would also be against Church policy. The bishop is not allowed to gather any donations, goods, or services directly. It must be donated to the Church, in which case your ward clerk will make a record of the donation. Once it has been donated to the Church, the bishop is unable to then direct it to himself unless he has the stake president's approval.

The original post says, "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?" Vort has since added that this would be without any explanation.

As a agent of the Church, it is conceivable that the bishop in question can redirect everything into his own name even though it was technically signed over to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." In large degree, it would depend on the laws in that part of the world and how they might be twisted.

The reason I'm being a stickler on this point is simple: There already have been examples of this very thing where the bishop takes the money/property and leaves the Church. No doubt there will be others who will be tempted in the future. So if a bishop told any of us to sign over everything we own to the Church, I hope that all of us would have the wisdom to be skeptical. Direction coming from God Himself is one thing -- God is perfect and we don't have to worry about him scamming us nor having any hidden agendas. But we live in an era where dishonesty abounds.

The whole point I'm making: A bishop who asks you to sign over everything you own, to do it immediately, and with no explanation -- that man is very, very likely not on the Lord's errand. He's most likely up to no good. My immediate reaction would be one of extreme skepticism, and I think that the Lord would expect us to be skeptical. I would find it highly distressing if the majority of Church members just take the Bishop's word for it and sign away all their Earthly possessions without another thought. The Lord merits that kind of trust. An imperfect mortal man doesn't.

I think it would be best to keep this discussion within the known framework for donating goods, materials, and services to the Church.

Agreed. I just know that my first reaction would not be, "Sure! Here you go!" And I don't think anyone should project that expectation on me or anyone else. It struck me that certain individuals were implying that any hesitation on my part (or anyone else's part) would only be because I'm worldly, self-centered and that I do not have the true spirit of the Law of Consecration written in my heart.

I disagree and would contend that a healthy amount of skepticism would actually be the more righteous course.

Once we are sure that it is all at the Lord's command, then we know our duty and should follow through accordingly.

[Snow]

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?

(Endowed LDS only) What if your bishop told you to sign everything you own over to the Church?

I would do it. I've made my covenants, and he's the bishop.

I might do it, but only if I got a divine manifestation that it's really what God wanted.

I would not do it if the bishop asked, but I would if the stake president asked.

I would only do such a thing if the prophet himself told me.

Of course I wouldn't do it! Didn't you hear? We don't live the law of consecration any more!

Your poll excludes any option that would reflect reality.

A bishop wouldn't instruct a member to sign over everything a member owned. A stake president would not either. If they did, there most certainly would be consequences for the bishop or stake president.

If the Church were to require such a thing, the instruction would come from Salt Lake and only passed on through the bishop.

[Vort]

Your poll excludes any option that would reflect reality.

Perhaps this is why such a question is known as a "hypothetical".

[Faded]

Your poll excludes any option that would reflect reality.

A bishop wouldn't instruct a member to sign over everything a member owned. A stake president would not either. If they did, there most certainly would be consequences for the bishop or stake president.

If the Church were to require such a thing, the instruction would come from Salt Lake and only passed on through the bishop.

Exactly!

This is the point that I've tried to make. If a bishop (or stake president for that matter) makes such a request without the direction from the First Presidency, then the odds are extremely high that it's a scam. Local leaders acting on their own authority to effectively re-institute the United Order in any capacity are overstepping their authority.

There have been Stake Presidents who have insisted that any member with a beard could not have a temple recommend. Such leaders have been rebuffed and set straight by the General Authorities. The proposed scenario would be a lot bigger change in Church policy than a matter of facial hair. So we can hardly expect that an order to donate everything you own to be legitimate if it originated at local levels of authority. The direction would have to come from Church HQ, and any member with any sense would thoroughly verify the source before proceeding.

[havejoy]

It's worrisome to me that anyone would put so much trust in a man as to sign over everything on just his request. That kind of thing happened in Jonestown and in Waco.

We have the right to receive personal revelation. It would be a shame not to ask for it.

[Carl62]

I know it's always been said that if we have any questions regarding policies in the church that we're supposed to go through the 'chain of command' but in a case like this, I'd be on the phone to SLC requesting to speak to some GA just to get some verification on this. If no one in SLC knew anything about this, then that would send red flags up about the bishop big time!

[Carl62]

It's worrisome to me that anyone would put so much trust in a man as to sign over everything on just his request. That kind of thing happened in Jonestown and in Waco.

I was thinking the exact same thing!! This concerns me that our church potentially has the power to go down a road such as this! I seriously hope that this isn't what we're about.

[havejoy]

That's my fear also. It isn't what we're about at all. When asked to accept any calling my reply is always that I want to go to the Temple and pray about it. The Bishop has always said he thinks that's a good idea. I can't imagine a holder of the priesthood ever saying anything against that.

I will never blindly follow anyone other than God.

[Vort]

I will never blindly follow anyone other than God.

Why would you blindly follow God?

[havejoy]

The more important question is why would you blindly follow any man.

[Vort]

The more important question is why would you blindly follow any man.

More important or not, that isn't the question I asked.

[Vort]

The more important question is why would you blindly follow any man.

Perhaps because that man is authorized of God.

What do you think it means to "blindly follow"? You and Miss½ have been using that term, but I have yet to see it defined.

[annamaureen]

I would pray to gain my own revelation.

[Misshalfway]

Perhaps because that man is authorized of God.

What do you think it means to "blindly follow"? You and Miss½ have been using that term, but I have yet to see it defined.

Blind Faith is a rock band that consisted of Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood, and Ric Grech!

[Snow]

Perhaps this is why such a question is known as a "hypothetical".

Then my thoughts are that the bishop would be a renegade and could likely (but not theoretically absolutely) ignored... especially since he would shortly be removed from office.

[Vort]

Blind Faith is a rock band that consisted of Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood, and Ric Grech!

Cute but unhelpful.

[Carl62]

Blind Faith is a rock band that consisted of Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood, and Ric Grech!

And musically, I'd blindly follow them wherever they wanted to go.:)

[StallionMcBeastly]

No that I was endowed yesterday (Saaawweeeeeet!) I can answer this question.

I would do it if I got a revelation from God. Yes, the Bishop was worthy and called to his position, but that by no means that he can't go astray or give an incorrect command.

I believe God wants us to use our own minds to think things out, and pray to their truthfulness. We shouldn't put blind trust and following in anyone - we should use our own God given gift to discern truth from falsehoods and recognize righteous command from the unrighteous.

[Bini]

This topic doesn't apply to me and to be honest I am not very familiar with the Law of Consecration. So I didn't vote BUT here's my answer. I could surrender my home and my car a lot easier than parting with my truly valuable possessions (ie : my wedding ring and my dogs (but I doubt the Church would want my dogs ).

[Misshalfway]

Cute but unhelpful.

So is this poll.

[Vort]

So is this poll.

Then why are you participating?